Decision 5 G.R. No. 221139 Nonetheless, the original jurisdiction this Court shares with the Court of Appeals and regional trial courts is not a license to immediately seek relief from this Court. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus must be filed in keeping with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. 29 The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is grounded on considerations of judicial economy. In Aala v. Mayor Uy: 30 The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical judicial policy designed to restrain parties from directly resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the lower courts. The logic behind this policy is grounded on the need to prevent "inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction," as well as to prevent the congestion of the Court's dockets. Hence, for this Court to be able to "satisfactorily,perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter[,]" it mus~ remain as a "court of last resort." This can be achieved by relieving the ~ourt of the "task of dealing with causes in the first instance." 31 (~itations omitted) · Applying this doctrine is not merely for practicality; it also ensures that courts at varying levels act in accord with their respective competencies. The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections 32 noted that "[t]he doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner." 33 Thus: Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented before them. They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the: Constitution. To effectively perform these functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the evidence as these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the 'actual case' that makes ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be national in scope. There are, however, some cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering their decisions could still be appealed before: the higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more standpoints in the review 29 People v. Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418 (1989) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division]. 30 803 Phil. 36 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. 31 Id. at 54-55. 751 Phil. 301 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. Id. at 329. 32 33 f