Hierarchy of Courts
Direct recourse to this Court is improper
because the Supreme Court is a court of last
resort and must remain to be so in order for it
to satisfactorily perform its constitutional
functions, thereby allowing it to devote its
time and attention to matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the
overcrowding of its docket. (Dy v. Bibat-
Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, 2013)
Exceptions to the Doctrine
A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
should be allowed only when there are special
and important reasons, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition. (First United v. Poro
Point, GR No. 178799, 2009) These cases are:
a. Ground of special and important reasons
clearly stated in the petition;
b. When dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy;
c. When demanded by the broader interest of
justice;
d. When the challenged orders were patent
nullities;
e. When analogous exceptional and
compelling circumstances called for and
justified our immediate and direct handling of
the case. (for a-e, Republic v. Caguioa, G.R.
No. 174385, 2013)
f. When there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at the
most immediate time (The Diocese of Bacolod
v Commission on Elections, G.R. 205728,
2015)
Note that in First United v. Poro Point, SC
did NOT find an exception to the doctrine.
In Republic v. Caguioa, Court applied the exception:
Second, while the principle of hierarchy of courts does
indeed require that recourses should be made to the lower
courts before they are made to the higher courts, this principle
is not an absolute rule and admits of exceptions under well-
defined circumstances. In several cases, we have allowed direct
invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs
of certiorari on the ground of special and important reasons
clearly stated in the petition; when dictated by public welfare
and the advancement of public policy; when demanded by the
broader interest of justice; when the challenged orders were
patent nullities; or when analogous exceptional and compelling
circumstances called for and justified our immediate and direct
handling of the case.
The Republic claims that the respondent judge violated
and continues to violate its right to due process by allowing the
private respondents and several others to intervene in the
case sans notice to the Republic; by extending to them the
benefit of the original injunction without the requisite
injunction bond applicable to them as separate injunction
applicants; and by continuing to suspend the Republic's right to
collect excise taxes from the private respondents and from the
lower court petitioners, thus adversely affecting the
government's revenues. To our mind, the demonstrated extent
of the respondent judge's actions and their effects constitute
special and compelling circumstances calling for our direct and
immediate attention.
||| (Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385, [February 20, 2013],
704 PHIL 315-334)
g. When the issues raised are of transcendental
importance (Rama v Moises, G.R. 197146,
2017)