G.R. No. 216788 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC declared the September 19, 2014 Order final and executory. [32] Undaunted, petitioner filed the present certiorari petition against the heirs of Sps. Villon, i.e., herein respondents. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in expunging petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the records of the case. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. Preliminarily, respondents assail [33] petitioner's present resort to a certiorari action arguing that: being final, the September 19, 2014 and December 12, 2014 Orders are not the proper subject of a petition for certiorari; [34] and, in any case, direct filing of the petition to the Court violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. [35] The Court finds petitioner's resort to a certiorari petition before the Court proper. Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari when "any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal , nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." [36] Section 1, Rule 41 of the same Rules provides that no appeal may be taken from, among others, an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; the aggrieved party may, however, file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. In this case, the assailed September 19, 2014 Order expunging petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the records of the case is effectively an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal that precludes resort to an appeal. Hence, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 41, its only recourse is via the present certiorari action. Moreover, certiorari is the proper remedy when the assailed orders were issued in excess of or without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess thereof. Grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, existing law, or jurisprudence. As will be discussed in detail below, the RTC's order, expunging from the records petitioner's Notice of Appeal was a grave legal error and contradicts established procedural rules. In this relation, it should be observed that while strict adherence to the judicial hierarchy of courts has been the long standing policy of the courts, it is not without exception as the Court possesses full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over petitions filed directly with it. A direct resort to the Court is allowed when the questions involved are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, [37] as in this case. [38] Proceeding to the main issue, petitioner argues that pursuant to Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Cour