[G.R. No. 141407. September 9, 2002.

LAPULAPU DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GROUP MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent.

Having the same power and prerogatives, courts of coequal and coordinate
jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders and judgments. The
ultimate test to determine the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused
the courts and the litigants by the repeated invocation of substantially the same
facts, issues and reliefs, thereby unnecessarily clogging court dockets and
creating the possibility of conflicting rulings and decisions.

G.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015

EDGAR T. BARROSO, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO
CITY AND TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION,
ANTONIO V. BATAO, REGIONAL MANAGER, Respondents.
The various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal
authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with
their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments.

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or

judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of
justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of
another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the
relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and
renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion
of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its
incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has been
issued is considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings on the
execution are still proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a writ of
execution has the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to correct
errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold
otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the
resolution of incidents arising in execution proceedings-Splitting of jurisdiction is
obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.
G.R. No. 113357             February 1, 1996
BENJAMIN PAREDES, LUZ BUENSUCESO, AUGUSTO SEVERINO,
RODRIGO TABANERA, STEPHEN SOLIVEN and ROBERTO
SANCHEZ, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, RIZALINO S. NAVARRO, as Secretary of Trade
and Industry, and IGNACIO S. SAPAL Director of the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, respondents.
-xxx- that courts should be reluctant to interfere with administrative action prior
to its completion or finality, the reason being that absence of a final order or
decision, the power of the administrative agency concerned has not been fully
exercised and there can be no irreparable harm. The rule of finality of
administrative action for purposes of judicial review also finds substance
in Rochester Telephone Co. vs. U.S. (307 U.S. 125) and Federal Power
Commission vs. Metropolitan Edison Co. (304 U.S. 375). The principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies which mandates that relief should first be
sought from the highest or most superior administrative agency, the likes of the
Cabinet, may prove that a resort to the courts would be unnecessary (Wee Poco
vs. Posadas, 65 Phil. 648), prevent the courts from being swamped by a resort to
them in the first instance (U.S. vs. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161), strengthened by the
rule on comity and convenience which requires Us to raise our hands until the
administrative process has been finally completed (Matienzo vs. Abellera, supra;
Railroad and Warehouse Commission vs. Duluth, St., R. Co., 273 US 625), and
thus it is after judicial review is no longer premature that the courts may
ascertain, in proper cases, whether the administrative action or findings are not
in violation of law, whether they are free from fraud or imposition and whether
they find substantial support from the evidence

G.R. No. 189026, November 09, 2016

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH TELEPHONE CORP., Petitioner, v. SMART

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has been increasingly called into play on
matters demanding the special competence of administrative agencies even if
such matters are at the same time within the jurisdiction of the courts. A case that
requires for its determination the expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of
some administrative board or commission because it involves technical matters
or intricate questions of fact, relief must first be obtained in an appropriate
administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
although the matter comes within the jurisdiction of the courts. The application
of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case in the court
but only for its suspension until after the matters within the
competence of the administrative body are threshed out and
determined.

To accord with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts cannot and

will not determine a controversy involving a question within the
competence of an administrative tribunal, the controversy having
been so placed within the special competence of the administrative
tribunal under a regulatory scheme. In that instance, the judicial
process is suspended pending referral to the administrative body for
its view on the matter in dispute. Consequently, if the courts cannot resolve
a question that is within the legal competence of an administrative body prior to
the resolution of that question by the latter, especially where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative agency to ascertain
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to
comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered, suspension or
dismissal of the action is proper.
In this era of clogged court dockets, administrative boards or commissions with
special knowledge, experience and capability to promptly hear and determine
disputes on technical matters or intricate questions of facts, subject to judicial
review in case of grave abuse of discretion, are well-nigh indispensable. Between
the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, therefore, the
unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former.

Under Rule 58, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court where
the action is pending may grant the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction.
Generally, trial courts have the ancillary jurisdiction to issue writs of preliminary
injunction in cases falling within its jurisdiction, including civil actions that are
incapable of pecuniary estimation41 and claims for sum of money exceeding
P400,000.00, among others. There are, however, exceptions to this rule -xxx-

-xxx- another exception is that courts could not interfere with the judgments,
orders, or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. This rule of
non-interference applies not only to courts of law having equal rank but also to
quasi-judicial agencies statutorily at par with such courts.