Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFRED PEARSON v. IAC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187640 2011-06-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ VELASCO JR., J.
Nevertheless, even with the existence of the remedy of appeal, this Court has, in certain cases, allowed a writ of certiorari where the order complained of is a patent nullity. [29] In the instant case, the lack of notice of pre-trial rendered all subsequent proceedings null and void. Hence, the CA was correct in not dismissing the petition for certiorari.
	GR No. 132540 2009-04-16	ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even assuming that ALECO has a cause of action that is ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, the petition should have been initially filed with the Court of Appeals under the principle of hierarchy of courts. It has been our consistent rule that while this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts (for writs enforceable within their respective regions) to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court. This concurrence is not to be taken as unrestrained freedom of choice as to which court the application of the writ will be directed.[19] Instead, litigants should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within the competence of the Court of Appeals, litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. This Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary, or where serious and important reasons therefor exist.[20] In this case, ALECO failed to show the existence of such serious and important reasons to justify their direct resort to this court in violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts.
	GR No. 173614 2007-09-28	LOLITA D. ENRICO v. HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B. MEDINACELI AND TRINIDAD CATLI-MEDINACELI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have earlier emphasized that while the Supreme Court has the concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the RTCs (for writs enforceable within their respective regions), to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court.[20] Instead, they should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within the competence of the Court of Appeals or the RTC, litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.[21] However, it cannot be gainsaid that this Court has the discretionary power to brush aside procedural lapses if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.[22] Moreover, notwithstanding the dismissibility of the instant Petition for its failure to observe the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts, this Court will proceed to entertain the case grounded as it is on a pure question of law.
	GR No. 145276 2005-11-29	ROLANDO AGULTO v. WILLIAM Z. TECSON CORONA, J.
Even assuming that ordinary appeal is the proper remedy, we have in certain instances allowed a writ of certiorari where the order of the court is a patent nullity.[11] In these exceptional cases, we entertained a petition for certiorari despite the availability of the remedy of appeal.[12]