GR No. 114732
August 11, 2003
Facts
Petitioner Yared filed a complaint in the RTC which caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens to the Transfer Certificates of Title of the property in dispute. Three years after, the judge dismissed the complaint on the basis that the petitioner’s cause of action had already prescribed.
On the other hand, Tiongco moved for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The first two motions of Tiongco was denied. However, the third motion was accepted on the grounds that it is persuasive. Therefore, the trial court ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. Then, both Yared and Tiongco filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court ruled in favor of Tiongco. Feeling that a motion for reconsideration would be fruitless, petitioner now filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.
Issue
W/N the petitioner violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy for his failure to bring the instant petition to the Court of Appeals first before going to the Supreme Court?
Ruling
Yes, the petitioner failed to observe the principle of judicial hierarchy. The principle of judicial hierarchy entails that petitions against the decision of the first level courts should be filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) while petitions against the decision of the RTC should be filed on the Court of Appeals (CA). Moreover, petitions against the decision of the CA should be filed before the Supreme Court (SC). The SC should be the last word and should only accept instant petition on the grounds that the case is of utmost importance. In the case at bar, petitioner Yared filed the petition in the Supreme Court without filing it before the Court of Appeals. Hence, the instant petition should not be granted because it fails to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts as the petition was not brought to the Court of Appeals.