G.R. No. 278101 -

Ruling

Accordingly, they have no legal standing to sue. Direct resort to the Court is unwarranted While the Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts mandates that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. [107] GIOS-SAMAR, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation and Communications [108] explained that the doctrine operates to: (1) prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; (2) prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket; and (3) prevent the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases which often have to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as the court better equipped to resolve factual questions. [109] The doctrine of hierarchy of courts, however, is not an iron-clad rule. Thus, The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC [110] enumerated the instances when direct resort to the Court is allowed, namely: (a) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (c) in cases of first impression; (d) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Supreme Court; (e) the time element or exigency in certain situations; (f) the filed petition reviews an act of a constitutional organ; (g) when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (h) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. [111] Relevant to the second instance, i.e., when the issues involved are of transcendental importance, there must be a clear or imminent threat to fundamental constitutional rights which would warrant the invocation of relief from the Court. [112] In GIOS-SAMAR , [113] the Court held that it is not the mere invocation of any of the foregoing instances which triggers the exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, but the fact that only questions of law, not of fact, must be involved. The Court is not a trier of facts and is not equipped to receive and evaluate evidence at the first instance. [114] Unfortunately for Abines et al., they failed to demonstrate the presence of compelling reasons to necessitate the immediate action of the Court. More, their allegation that the acts of Rep. Barbers, the House of Representatives, and the House Tri-Committee perpetuated a chilling effect is a question of fact necessitating the evaluation of evidence. Thus, the non-observance of the doctrine of hierarchy o