"Preliminarily, we wish to point out that Miguel failed to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.
In Cruz v. Gingoyon,10 the Court aptly explained the principle, thus:
We also find the necessity to emphasize strict observance of the hierarchy of courts. "A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ('inferior') courts should be filed with the [RTC], and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals (CA). A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition." For the guidance of the petitioner, "[t]his Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive." Its jurisdiction is concurrent with the CA, and with the RTC in proper cases. "However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant upon a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition." Unwarranted demands upon this Court's attention must be prevented to allow time and devotion for pressing matters within its exclusive jurisdiction.11 (Emphasis supplied)"
SECOND DIVISION
[ UDK-15368, September 15, 2021 ]
GIL MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/sep2021/udk_15368_2021.html
