You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2013-01-15
REYES, J.
It should be stressed that one of the factors that should be considered in election protests is expediency.  Proceedings in election protests are special and expeditious and the early resolution of such cases should not be hampered by any unnecessary observance of procedural rules.[30] "The proceedings should not be encumbered by delays.  All of these are because the term of elective office is likewise short. There is the personal stake of the contestants which generates feuds and discords.  Above all is the public interest. Title to public elective office must not be left long under cloud. Efficiency of public administration should not be impaired. It is thus understandable that pitfalls which may retard the determination of election contests should be avoided."[31]
2011-03-23
DEL CASTILLO, J.
We also agree with the CA's observation that the trial court impliedly recognized petitioner's right to intervene when it pronounced that petitioner failed to exercise its right to claim ownership of the F/V Sea Lion.  This being the case, petitioner should have filed an appeal instead of a petition for certiorari before the CA.  Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari is unavailing when an appeal is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.[37]  "The nature of the questions intended to be raised on appeal is of no consequence. It may well be that those questions will treat exclusively of whether x x x the judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion x x x.  This is immaterial.  The remedy, to repeat, is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action."[38]  The jurisdiction of a court is not affected by its erroneous decision.[39]  The orders and rulings of a court on all controversies pertaining to the case cannot be corrected by certiorari if the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person.[40]  Thus, we agree with the CA's dismissal of the petition.