This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is established that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain original actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, including those in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.[30] It bears emphasis, however, as provided in the Rule itself, that one requisite to a petition for certiorari is that "there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law"[31] from the acts of the respondent tribunal. In the instant case, the remedy of appeal from the order of the RTC dismissing the complaint for injunction and damages was available to respondent Dy and it was a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, following the general rule, the questioned petition for certiorari filed by respondent Dy before the Court of Appeals, was not proper. As an exception, the remedy of certiorari may be successfully invoked, both in cases wherein an appeal does not lie and in those wherein the right to appeal having been lost with or without the appellant's negligence, where the court has no jurisdiction to issue the order or decision which is the subject matter of the remedy.[32] In the instant case, however, as will be seen from the discussion below, the RTC acted within its jurisdiction in issuing its questioned orders. | |||||