PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF COURTS

The Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari; the rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of recourses to these courts. In original petitions for certiorari, the Supreme Court will not directly entertain this special civil action unless the redress desired cannot be obtained elsewhere based on exceptional and compelling circumstances justifying immediate resort to the Supreme Court (Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 378, 384-385; De los Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 294, 297; and Santos v. Cruz, G.R. Nos. 170096 and 170097, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 66, 75 cited in CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) vs. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), G.R. No. 174697, July 8, 2010, BRION, J.).

Parenthetically, a direct resort to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari is incorrect for it violates the hierarchy of courts (Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA 338, 346). In other words, a regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals (Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 235, 285 citing People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002, 384 SCRA 152). 

This rule, however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances (Morales v. Skills International Company, G.R. No. 149285, 30 August 2006, 500 SCRA 186, 194 citing Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., G.R. No. 140946, 13 September 2004, 438 SCRA 224 cited in MIAQUE vs. PATAG, G.R. Nos. 170609-13, January 30, 2009, First Division, Corona, J.).