I. Overview: What “Hierarchy of Courts” Means

In the Philippine setting, the “hierarchy of courts” refers to the ordered structure of judicial tribunals—organized by constitutional design and statute—through which judicial power is exercised, cases are tried, and judgments are reviewed on appeal. It also refers to a practical doctrine: as a rule, litigants must first seek relief from the proper lower court before invoking the power of higher courts, especially the Supreme Court.

At its core, the hierarchy serves four functions:

Allocation of judicial work (trial courts find facts; appellate courts review; the Supreme Court settles controlling doctrines).
Uniformity and stability of law (higher courts harmonize interpretations).
Orderly remedies (appeals and special actions follow defined routes).
Institutional competence (fact-finding is primarily for trial courts).

The Philippine judiciary is constitutionally vested with judicial power, including the duty to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of government committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

II. Constitutional Foundation: The Supreme Court and “Lower Courts”

A. The Supreme Court (SC)

The 1987 Constitution places the Supreme Court at the apex. It is the final arbiter of legal controversies and the court of last resort. It exercises:

Original jurisdiction over specific petitions (e.g., certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus), and certain cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
Appellate jurisdiction over decisions of lower courts in the manner provided by law and procedural rules.
Administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.
Rule-making power over pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.

The SC sits either En Banc or in Divisions (typically three divisions). Certain matters (e.g., constitutionality, disciplinary cases against judges, cases required by the Constitution) are resolved En Banc.

B. Lower Courts

“Lower courts” include all other courts established by law, primarily:

Court of Appeals
Sandiganbayan
Court of Tax Appeals
Regional Trial Courts
Metropolitan Trial Courts / Municipal Trial Courts in Cities / Municipal Trial Courts / Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Shari’a Courts (in applicable areas under special law)

These courts exist through legislation and are structured to ensure nationwide access to justice.

III. The Core Judicial Ladder (General Courts)

A. First-Level Courts (Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction)

These are the entry-level trial courts for many civil and criminal cases:

Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) – in Metro Manila
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC)
Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) – serve multiple municipalities

Key characteristics:

Primarily trial courts: they receive evidence, determine facts, and render judgments.
Handle less serious criminal cases (typically based on penalty thresholds and specific statutory assignments).
Handle civil cases within monetary and subject-matter limits (as updated by statute).
Often have exclusive jurisdiction over:
- Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (ejectment) cases
- Many small claims matters (through special rules)
- Violations of certain ordinances and minor offenses

Appeals from first-level courts generally go to the Regional Trial Court.

B. Second-Level Courts (Courts of General Jurisdiction)

Regional Trial Courts (RTC)

The RTC is the principal trial court of general jurisdiction. It sits in judicial regions and multiple branches.

Typical functions:

Tries serious criminal cases (higher penalties).
Tries civil cases beyond the first-level monetary thresholds or involving specific subject matters assigned by law.
Has special jurisdiction over many matters such as:
- Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation (a classic category in Philippine jurisdictional analysis)
- Real property actions above certain assessed-value thresholds
- Probate and settlement of estate cases above statutory thresholds
- Family-related cases (often through designated Family Courts or RTC branches)
Exercises appellate jurisdiction over decisions of first-level courts.

Appeals from RTC decisions (in cases where RTC acted as a trial court) usually go to the Court of Appeals, but there are important exceptions (notably, certain cases go to the Supreme Court or to special appellate courts by law).

When RTC acts as an appellate court (reviewing MeTC/MTC/MTCC/MCTC decisions), further review is generally by petition to the Court of Appeals (commonly via special modes rather than a full appeal, depending on the rules).

IV. Appellate Courts in the Philippine System

Unlike some jurisdictions with only one intermediate appellate court, the Philippines has multiple appellate-level courts, each with defined subject coverage.

A. Court of Appeals (CA) – The General Intermediate Appellate Court

The Court of Appeals is the principal intermediate appellate court.

What it typically reviews:

Appeals from RTC decisions in civil and criminal cases (unless assigned elsewhere by law).
Decisions of many quasi-judicial agencies (commonly via Rule 43 petition for review).
Certain special proceedings and special civil actions.

Powers:

Reviews errors of law and (in many cases) errors of fact.
Can receive evidence in limited situations (e.g., when procedural rules allow).

The CA usually sits in divisions.

B. Sandiganbayan – The Anti-Graft Court

The Sandiganbayan is a collegiate court with special jurisdiction primarily over:

Public officers and employees occupying positions classified by law, for offenses committed in relation to office (depending on position, salary grade, and the offense).
Cases involving:
- Graft and corruption offenses (e.g., those prosecuted under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
- Plunder
- Other crimes committed by certain public officials in relation to office, as defined by law

Structure and role:

Acts as a trial court for many cases within its jurisdiction.
Can also have appellate functions in specific contexts provided by statute.
Its decisions are reviewable by the Supreme Court (generally via petition).

C. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) – The Tax and Customs Court

The Court of Tax Appeals is a specialized court for tax, customs, and certain revenue-related cases.

Typical coverage:

Appeals involving:
- Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs
- Certain local tax cases
- Tax collection cases and criminal tax cases within statutory parameters
Also covers some cases involving the exercise of tax authority by local governments, as provided by law.

Structure:

Sits in divisions, and as En Banc for specific matters.
Its decisions are reviewable by the Supreme Court.

V. The Supreme Court at the Top: Review and Finality

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in the ordinary course. It focuses on:

Settling questions of law
Ensuring uniform interpretation of statutes and the Constitution
Correcting grave abuses and jurisdictional errors through extraordinary writs
Providing final review in cases where the Constitution, statutes, or procedural rules allow

A key practical consequence: not every losing party automatically gets Supreme Court review. Many Supreme Court remedies are discretionary, and procedural rules are designed to end litigation at some point.

VI. Special Courts and Special Jurisdiction Within the Hierarchy

The Philippine judiciary also includes specialized courts or court designations created by special statutes and Supreme Court administrative issuances.

A. Family Courts

Family-related cases are heard by Family Courts (often RTC branches designated or established under law). They handle matters such as:

Child and family relations cases
Domestic violence-related petitions (in coordination with special laws)
Adoption, guardianship, custody, support (subject to statutory allocations)

Even when a “Family Court” is discussed, it remains part of the RTC level in the hierarchy.

B. Shari’a Courts

In areas where applicable, Shari’a courts exist under special law, principally for specified personal and family relations among Muslims and matters recognized by that legal framework.

Common types:

Shari’a District Courts
Shari’a Circuit Courts

They form part of the judicial system but operate under special jurisdictional rules.

C. Designated Special Courts (not separate tiers)

The Supreme Court may designate certain RTC branches as special commercial courts, environmental courts, drug courts, and the like. These designations:

Do not create a new constitutional “level” of court,
But assign case specialization to certain branches to improve expertise and efficiency.

VII. The Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay) and Court Access

While not a “court,” the Katarungang Pambarangay system is a mandatory pre-litigation conciliation mechanism for many disputes within the same city/municipality (subject to exceptions). In covered cases, the general rule is:

Parties must undergo barangay conciliation first.
Non-compliance can affect the filing of cases in court.

This interacts with the hierarchy by controlling when courts may be accessed for certain disputes.

VIII. Jurisdiction: The Real Engine of the Hierarchy

Understanding hierarchy requires understanding jurisdiction, which is conferred by the Constitution or statute and cannot be expanded by agreement.

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Determines which court can hear the case based on the nature of the action (e.g., tax, graft, family, civil, criminal) and sometimes monetary thresholds.

Tax/customs disputes often route to the CTA.
Graft cases involving certain officials route to the Sandiganbayan.
Ordinary civil/criminal cases route among first-level courts and RTC depending on thresholds and penalties.

B. Territorial Jurisdiction (Venue)

Determines where the case should be filed geographically, generally based on:

Residence of parties (civil cases), or
Place of commission (criminal cases), or
Location of property (real actions)

C. Original vs Appellate Jurisdiction

Original: court hears the case first, receives evidence.
Appellate: court reviews what a lower tribunal decided.

The hierarchy is essentially a map of how original jurisdiction decisions travel upward for review.

IX. Appeals and Review Routes (Typical Pathways)

A. From First-Level Courts

MeTC/MTC/MTCC/MCTC → RTC (appeal as provided by rules)
Further review may go to the CA, typically by petition (depending on how the RTC acted and the rules involved).

B. From RTC (as Trial Court)

RTC → CA (ordinary appeal in most cases)
Some matters go directly to the Supreme Court only on pure questions of law, but procedural rules and jurisprudence strongly encourage use of the CA when factual issues exist.

C. From CA / Sandiganbayan / CTA

CA → SC generally by petition for review on certiorari (focused on legal issues)
Sandiganbayan → SC
CTA → SC

D. From Quasi-Judicial Agencies

Many quasi-judicial decisions are reviewed by the CA (commonly via petition for review), unless a special law assigns review to another court (notably the CTA for many tax-related agency decisions).

X. The Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts (Practical Rule of Judicial Behavior)

A. The General Rule

Even if higher courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs (e.g., certiorari, prohibition, mandamus), litigants are generally expected to file first with the lowest court competent to grant relief:

Start with the RTC, then CA, then SC as appropriate.

This prevents congestion in higher courts and respects their institutional role.

B. Common Exceptions (When Direct Resort May Be Allowed)

Direct resort to a higher court may be entertained in exceptional situations, often involving:

Purely legal issues of first impression
Constitutional issues of transcendental importance
Time-sensitive matters where lower-court recourse is inadequate
Issues requiring immediate resolution to prevent grave injustice
Cases involving novel questions affecting public welfare

Even then, direct resort is not guaranteed; it is a matter of judicial discretion.

XI. Extraordinary Writs and How They Fit the Hierarchy

Special civil actions—especially Rule 65 petitions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus)—often test the hierarchy.

A. Certiorari (and related writs)

These are not substitutes for lost appeals. They are remedies to correct:

Lack or excess of jurisdiction
Grave abuse of discretion

B. Habeas Corpus, Amparo, Habeas Data, and Related Remedies

These special remedies have their own procedural frameworks and may be filed in courts designated by the rules, with review ultimately possible in higher courts.

XII. Administrative Supervision and Judicial Governance

The Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over:

All courts and court personnel
Assignments, designations, and judicial regions
Discipline of judges and court employees
Promulgation of rules to improve court administration

Appointments to the judiciary involve constitutional mechanisms (including the Judicial and Bar Council) for courts covered by constitutional appointment processes.

XIII. Quick Reference: The Main Court Levels in Order

Supreme Court
Collegiate Appellate/Special Courts
- Court of Appeals
- Sandiganbayan
- Court of Tax Appeals
Regional Trial Courts (RTC) (including specialized branches/designations such as Family Courts, Special Commercial Courts, etc.)
First-Level Courts
- MeTC / MTCC / MTC / MCTC
Special Jurisdiction Courts
- Shari’a courts (where applicable; integrated into the system by special law)

XIV. Practical Takeaways for Litigants and Lawyers

The “proper court” is determined first by jurisdiction, not convenience.
The hierarchy shapes strategy and remedies: file in the correct trial court, preserve issues, then use the correct appellate route.
Higher courts are not designed to redo trials; factual disputes belong primarily in trial courts.
Extraordinary writs are powerful but tightly controlled; they are meant to correct jurisdictional abuses, not ordinary errors.

XV. Conclusion

The Philippine judicial hierarchy is a layered structure designed to balance accessibility (through numerous trial courts), accuracy (through intermediate review), and uniformity (through Supreme Court doctrine). Understanding it requires mastery of (1) the court ladder, (2) jurisdictional boundaries, (3) appeal routes, and (4) the doctrine discouraging premature or unnecessary resort to higher tribunals. Together, these principles ensure that disputes move through an orderly system where facts are found at the proper level, errors are corrected through structured review, and the law develops consistently for the entire nation.