This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, it is also settled that this Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance of a petition filed directly with it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, so warrant.[14] Under the present circumstances, the Court will take cognizance of this case as an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts, considering that the Information against petitioner was filed way back in November 2001.[15] Any further delay in the resolution of the instant petition will be prejudicial to petitioner. Moreover, the principle may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised as in this case.[16] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts,[29] as a rule, requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.[30] A regard for judicial hierarchy clearly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals.[31] The rule is not iron-clad, however, as it admits of certain exceptions. | |||||