This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At this point, it must be observed that the instant petition is likewise dismissible for its violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. As previously mentioned, petitioners, without awaiting public respondent's action on their Motion for Reconsideration, immediately filed the instant petition before this Court, instead of the appellate court, as required by said doctrine. In Vivas v. The Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[15] the Court had occasion to explain: Even in the absence of such provision, the petition is also dismissible because it simply ignored the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. True, the Court, the CA and the RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The concurrence of jurisdiction, however, does not grant the party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice. The petitioner has not advanced any special or important reason which would allow a direct resort to this Court. Under the Rules of Court, a party may directly appeal to this Court only on pure questions of law. In the case at bench, there are certainly factual issues as Vivas is questioning the findings of the investigating team. | |||||
|
2016-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking that a judgment be rendered directing the defendant to desist from continuing with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal. Its proper function is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. When, however, under the circumstances, the act sought to be restrained can no longer be committed, resort to such recourse is rendered futile for prohibition is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished.[18] | |||||