1. IN GENERAL
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. (Cabili v. Balindong, En Banc, A.M. No. RTJ-10-225, 06 September 2011)
To ensure the orderly administration of justice, the quintessential doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference between concurrent and coordinate courts is being enforced in our jurisdiction. It provides that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction could not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. Acting as an “insurmountable barrier,” it strongly proscribes the exercise of jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction as regards cases relative to that already decided by another co-equal court. (Soliman v. Heirs of Tolentino, G.R. Nos. 229164 & 229186, 02 September 2019)
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. (Cabili v. Balindong, s...
Already a subscriber? Log in below. Not yet a member? Subscribe.