Francisco vs.

Fernando

FACTS:

Francisco, a taxpayer and an IBP member, filed an original action for the issuance of writs of
prohibition and mandamus to enjoin Fernando and MMDA from further implementing the “Flag
Scheme” against jaywalking. Francisco contended that Flag Scheme has no legal basis since the
MMDA’s governing board did not authorize it and the same violates the private rights of the
pedestrians.

Fernando sought the dismissal of petition for lack of standing and violation of the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts. He further contended that the scheme was a valid preventive measure against jaywalking.

ISSUES:

 Whether the Flag Scheme has no legal basis

 Is there a violation of the hierarchy of courts

RULING:

 No. MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations
enacted by proper authorities. Since all the cities and municipalities within MMDA’s jurisdiction
have enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances, it serves as a sufficient legal basis for the Flag Scheme’s
implementation in order to enforce such ordinances.

 Yes. Under the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts, direct resort to the SC will no longer be
entertained, unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts and under
exceptional and compelling circumstances. Here, SC’s concurrent jurisdiction with other lower
courts does not give the litigants unrestrained freedom in directly seeking relief in SC. Since the
issues are not those falling under the exceptions, his action of raising the question directly to SC is
a violation of the doctrine.