Scribd
Upload
158 views4 pages

Judicial Courtesy: Definition and Limits

The document discusses the concept of judicial courtesy in the Philippine legal system. It provides that even if a higher court does not issue a writ preventing lower court proceedings, the lower court should suspend its own proceedings out of respect for the higher court and to avoid rendering the higher court's deliberations moot. The document also provides examples from case law that help define the limitations of applying judicial courtesy.

Uploaded by

Pierre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
158 views4 pages

Judicial Courtesy: Definition and Limits

The document discusses the concept of judicial courtesy in the Philippine legal system. It provides that even if a higher court does not issue a writ preventing lower court proceedings, the lower court should suspend its own proceedings out of respect for the higher court and to avoid rendering the higher court's deliberations moot. The document also provides examples from case law that help define the limitations of applying judicial courtesy.

Uploaded by

Pierre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Judicial Courtesy

Group D
Leader:
Momongan, Lino
Members:
Bahian, Rachel
Patriana, Pierre
Tamala, Jasmine
Even if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or TRO issued by a higher court, it
would be proper for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the
precept of judicial courtesy. Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and
ethical considerations demands that the lower court wait for the final determination of
the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly
what was before the higher court. (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 50054, [August 17, 1988], 247 PHIL 387-398)

Definition of Judicial Courtesy


The precept of "judicial courtesy" should not be applied
indiscriminately and haphazardly if we are to maintain the
relevance of Sec. 7, Rule 65, Rules of Civil
Procedure which states that

"the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal


case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction has been issued against the public

Limitations
respondent from further proceeding in the case."

So construed, in Eternal Gardens Memorial Corp. v. Court


of Judicial of Appeals, the rule of "judicial courtesy" would apply
only if there is a strong probability that the issues before

Courtesy the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund


as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the
lower court.||| (Go v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759
(OCA I.P.I No. 00-925-RTJ), [February 27, 2003], 446 PHIL
227-242)
Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan
(GR. 211356)

FACTS: While a petition for certiorari Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court has held in
was pending in the Court of Appeals, several cases that there are instances where, even
the Regional Trial Court proceeded if there is no writ of preliminary injunction or TRO
with petition for mandamus and issued by a higher court, it would be proper for a
granted, said petition.
lower court or court of origin to suspend its
proceedings on the precept of judicial courtesy.
Issue: Whether the non-issuance by
the Court of Appeals (CA) of an Here, the RTC did not apply this principle in the
injunction justify the act of the proceeding for the petition for mandamus. It failed
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in granting to consider the fact that the propriety of the very
the petition for mandamus regarding directives under the writ of mandamus sought is
the same case.
wholly reliant on the CA resolution and that
judicial courtesy dictates that it suspend its
Ruling: No, non-issuance of an proceedings and await the CA‘s resolution of the
injunction does not justify that act of petition for review filed by the petitioner.
the RTC.

You might also like