 Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

Under the principle of 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.

Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons
clearly stated in the petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the
advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3)
when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and
compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the
case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts.

This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction,

beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the
proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary
to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court‘s time and attention which are better devoted
to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the
Court‘s docket.

The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of
deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be
exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.

Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed
with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. A direct invocation of the SC‘s
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and
important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and
importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future
litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptions to Hierarchy of Courts

1. A direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. A direct
resort to this court includes availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to
 assail the constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive branches of
the government.
2. When the issues involved are of transcendental importance. In these cases, the
imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh
the necessity for prudence. The doctrine relating to constitutional issues of
transcendental importance prevents courts from the paralysis of procedural niceties
when clearly faced with the need for substantial protection
3. Cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court. In cases of first
impression, no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on this
matter.
4. Constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court.
5. Time element presented in this case cannot be ignored. Exigency in certain
situations would qualify as an exception for direct resort to this court.
6. Filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ.
7. 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. The lack of other sufficient remedies
in the course of law alone is sufficient ground to allow direct resort to this court.
8. 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.”

 Doctrine of Judicial Courtesy/ Judicial Stability or Non-Interference

Doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference dictates that the assumption by the Makati
RTC over the issue operates as an “insurmountable barrier” to the subsequent assumption
by the Parañaque RTC. By insisting on ruling on the same issue, the Parañaque RTC
effectively interfered with the Makati RTC’s resolution of the issue and created the
possibility of conflicting decisions. Cojuangco v. Villegas states: “The various branches of
the [regional trial courts] of a province or city, having as they have the same or equal
authority and exercising as they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction, should not,
cannot and are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their
orders or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously
hamper the administration of justice.” The matter is further explained thus:

It has been held that "even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, it is, also, axiomatic that the
court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts."

In addition, it is a familiar principle that when a court of competent jurisdiction

acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, its authority continues, subject only
to the appellate authority, until the matter is finally and completely disposed of, and that no
court of co-ordinate authority is at liberty to interfere with its action. This doctrine is
applicable to civil cases, to criminal prosecutions, and to courts-martial. The principle is
essential to the proper and orderly administration of the laws; and while its observance
might be required on the grounds of judicial comity and courtesy, it does not rest upon
such considerations exclusively, but is enforced to prevent unseemly, expensive, and
dangerous conflicts of jurisdiction and of the process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other‘s orders.

The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-
equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.

Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession
issued by another RTC.

As a general rule, No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of
another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much
less declare as unjust a judgment of another court. However, the doctrine does not apply
where a third party claimant is involved (Santos v. Bayhon, G.R. No. 88643, July 23, 1991).

This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for
an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such
body is co- equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the
control of the latter.

 Law of the Case Doctrine

The law of the case doctrine means that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that
decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.

Under the law of the case doctrine, a decision in a prior appeal is followed in later
proceedings unless a party introduces substantially different evidence, or the prior
decision is clearly erroneous and works a manifest injustice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same
issues in subsequent stages in the same case.

 The Doctrine of Precedent

The doctrine of precedent, a fundamental principle of English Law is a form of reasoning

and decision making formed by case law. It says that precedents not only have persuasive
authority but also must be followed when similar circumstances arise. Any principle
announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. In short the courts are bound
within prescribed limits by prior decisions of superior courts. Judges are also obliged to
obey the set-up precedents established by prior decisions. This legal principle is called
Stare decisis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of precedent is one of the principles that underpins common law. The Latin
name for the doctrine of precedent is stare decisis (‘stand by that decided’). It is a principle
that requires judges to follow the rulings and determinations of judges in higher courts,
where a case involves similar facts and issues.

 Stare Decisis and Res Judicata

Res judicata (which means a "matter adjudged") and stare decisis non quieta et movere ([or
simply, stare decisis] which means "follow past precedents and do not disturb what has
been settled") are general procedural law principles which both deal with the effects of
previous but factually similar dispositions to subsequent cases.

The focal point of res judicata is the judgment. The principle states that a judgment on
the merits in a previous case rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction would bind a
subsequent case if, between the first and second actions, there exists an identity of
parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.

On the other hand, the focal point of stare decisis is the doctrine created. The principle,
entrenched under Article 8 of the Civil Code, evokes the general rule that, for the sake of
certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be doctrinally applied to those that
follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It
proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing
considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same
questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly
situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare
decisis is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Res judicata means "a thing adjudicated"; "a case already decided"; or "a matter settled by a
decision or judgment".

Stare decisis means "to stand by decided cases", "to uphold precedents", "to maintain
former adjudications", or "not to disturb settled law". Those things which have been so
often adjudged ought to rest in peace.

Res judicata and Stare decisis are members of the same family. Both relate to adjudication
of matters. Both deal with final determination of contested questions and have the binding
effect in future litigation. Both the doctrines are the result of decisions of a competent court
of law and based on public policy.

There is, however, distinction between the two. Whereas res judicata is based upon
conclusiveness of judgement and adjudication of prior findings, stare decisis rests on legal
principles.

Res judicata binds parties and privies, while stare decisis operates between strangers also
and binds courts from taking a contrary view on the point of law already decided.
Res judicata relates to a specific controversy, stare decisis touches legal principles.
Res judicata presupposes judicial finding upon the same facts as involved in subsequent
litigation between the same parties. Stare decisis applies to same principle of law to all
parties.

 Ratio decidendi v. Obiter Dictum

Ratio Decidendi
- Meaning: ratio = the measure of a quantity in terms of another; decidendi = decision.
- the ratio decidendi may be described roughly as the rule of law applied by and acted
on by the court, or the rule which the court regarded as governing the case
- The ratio decidendi has binding authority. It is more authoritative than obiter dicta.

Obiter Dicta
- Meaning: obiter = by the way; dicta (pl.) = sayings; dictum (sing.) = saying
- is a statement made by a judge in course of his judgment which may not be precisely
relevant to the issue before him
- An obiter dictum has no such binding authority. It is a by-product of the original
judgment. They are only remarks and opinions of the judge.
- is a rule of law stand by a judge which was neither expressly nor impliedly treated
by him as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ratio decidendi
It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the
questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence.

To determine whether a decision has ‘declared law’ it cannot be said to be a law when a
point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a
decision.

A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for
consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered.

obiter dictum
An ‘obiter dictum’ as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a
legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a
decision.
Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for
the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a
precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio decidendi = essentially the main point of the argument, the deciding factor; literally
"the rationale for the decision"

Obiter dictum = other things which support the main point, additional information; literally
"said by the way"