CIVIL PROCEDURE: SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PRESIDING JUDGE (Jurisprudence)

G.R. No. 142628                      February 6, 2007

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

The Supreme Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Moreover, the principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to cases involving factual questions. As it is not a trier of facts, the Court cannot entertain cases involving factual issues.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: PEOPLE VS. AZARRAGA (Jurisprudence)

G.R. Nos. 187117 and 187127                   October 12, 2011

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

At the outset, it is an established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from the Court. The rationale for this rule is twofold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the limited time of this Court; and (b) it would be an inevitably result in delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.