Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
[103] Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-348 (1936).
	GR No. 209271 2015-12-08	ISAAA v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) VILLARAMA, JR., J.
By Resolution dated July 10, 2012, the Court referred this case to the CA for acceptance of the return of the writ and for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition of judgment.[22]
	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
In the leading case of The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec,[76] the Court enumerated the specific instances when direct resort to this Court is allowed, to wit:(a) When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;
	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
Lastly, the sixth ground is indubitably applicable. The rulings of the COMELEC, as a constitutional body, can immediately be reviewed by the Court on proper petition. As quoted in The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC,[79] citing Albano v. Arranz,[80] "it is easy to realize the chaos that would ensue if the Court of First Instance of each and every province were [to] arrogate itself the power to disregard, suspend, or contradict any order of the Commission on Elections: that constitutional body would be speedily reduced to impotence."
	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Jurisdiction, as hereinabove used, more accurately pertains to jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. In The Diocese ofBacolod v. Commission on Elections,[187] subject matter jurisdiction was defined as "the authority 'to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers.'"
	GR No. 194767 2015-10-14	EDGAR T. BARROSO v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PERALTA, J.
It must first be emphasized that trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by the Court. Said rule is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. This doctrine was exhaustively explained in The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra and the Bishop Himself in His Personal Capacity v. Commission on Elections and the Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon[6] in this wise: x x x we explained the necessity of the application of the hierarchy of courts:
	GR No. 194767 2015-10-14	EDGAR T. BARROSO v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PERALTA, J.
This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating - in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusion of bench or bar - existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of the actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that role.[7]
	GR No. 193253 2015-09-08	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. AGNES VST DEVANADERA PERALTA, J.
Be that as it may, the Court stressed in The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections[49] that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule, and that it has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition. Recognized exceptions to the said doctrine are as follows: (a) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (c) cases of first impression where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on the matter; (d) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court; (e) where exigency in certain situations necessitate urgency in the resolution of the cases; (f) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (g) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression; and (h) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.[50] Since the present case includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, as well as to avoid multiplicity of suits and further delay in its disposition, the Court shall directly resolve the petition for certiorari, instead of referring it to the CTA.