This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Besides, FUCC violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy in filing this petition for certiorari directly with this Court. Section 58 is clear that petitions for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the decision of the head of the procuring agency, like PPMC, should be filed with the Regional Trial Court. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the RTC over petitions for certiorari is concurrent with this Court. However, such concurrence does not allow unrestricted freedom of choice of the court forum. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue this writ should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[15] | |||||
|
2007-02-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court is highly improper for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the hierarchy of courts. This Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the Court of Appeals and with the regional trial courts in proper cases within their respective regions. However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. The hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum for such petitions. Thus, petitions for the issuance of such extraordinary writs against a regional trial court should be filed with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is the established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon this Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of its docket.[40] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Civil Case No. N-501 was dismissed without prejudice by the CFI of Cavite on 16 October 1969. The same cannot be deemed a judgment on the merits. A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point.[82] The dismissal of the case without prejudice indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had not been commenced. In other words, the discontinuance of a case not on the merits does not bar another action on the same subject matter.[83] | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Civil Case No. N-501 was dismissed without prejudice by the CFI of Cavite on 16 October 1969. The same cannot be deemed a judgment on the merits. A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point.[82] The dismissal of the case without prejudice indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had not been commenced. In other words, the discontinuance of a case not on the merits does not bar another action on the same subject matter.[83] | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| [26] Page-Tenorio v. Tenorio, G.R. No. 138490, November 24, 2004, 443 SCRA 560, 566-567. | |||||