Practice question
A petitioner seeks direct Supreme Court resolution of a writ involving disputed facts essential to the legal issue. He invokes only the case's asserted transcendental importance. Under Gios-Samar's main ruling, what is the central problem?
- Calling a case important conclusively resolves all factual disputes.
- Concurrent original jurisdiction makes fact-finding mandatory in the Supreme Court.
- The importance label does not overcome the need for proper factual adjudication and the hierarchy requirement.
- Every factual dispute eliminates judicial power from all courts.
- The petitioner can designate any witness as the final judge.
Legal references
- Gios-Samar v DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019, en banc main decision, concurrent jurisdiction and hierarchy: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/mar2019/gr_217158_2019.html
- Galang v Wallis, G.R. No. 223434, July 3, 2019, main decision, general and special jurisdiction (not historical monetary thresholds): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_223434_2019.html
- People v Mendez, G.R. Nos. 208310–11 and 208662, March 28, 2023, en banc MAIN decision, adherence and exceptional jurisdictional estoppel: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69095
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.