Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 193773 2013-04-02	TERESITA L. SALVA v. FLAVIANA M. VALLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have held that if the purported "formal charge" does not contain the foregoing, it cannot be said that the employee concerned has been formally charged.[10] Thus: Citing CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 entitled "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service," particularly Section 16 thereof on the requirement of a formal charge in investigations, the appellate court correctly ruled that:
	GR No. 172588 2013-03-18	ISABEL N. GUZMAN v. ANIANO N. GUZMAN BRION, J.
Apparently, to resurrect her lost appeal, the petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the RTC for deciding the case against her. Certiorari, by its very nature, is proper only when appeal is not available to the aggrieved party; the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.[31] It cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.[32]
	GR No. 184482 2012-07-04	BETHEL REALTY v. HOUSING PEREZ, J.
Settled is the rule that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available to an aggrieved party only when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[26] Otherwise, the petition will not prosper even if the alleged ground is grave abuse of discretion.[27]