This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The petitioners' erroneous choice of remedy was further aggravated by the fact that the same was apparently resorted to after they lost the remedy of appeal. In their petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, petitioners pointedly stated that "while it may be true that appeal was an available remedy, the same is not adequate or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient."[63] This is plainly inaccurate. As previously discussed, petitioners received the RTC Decisions in Civil Case Nos. Q-04-091, Q-04-092 and Q-04-093 on July 7, 2004. From then on, petitioners filed the three separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on August 23, 2004, or forty-seven (47) days after receipt of the RTC Decisions. In Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong,[64] we reiterated the basic remedial law principle that: While the special civil action of certiorari may be availed of in the alternative situation where an appeal would not constitute a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, this is on the theoretical assumption that the right to appeal is still available in the case. If, however, the remedy by appeal had already been lost and the loss was occasioned by petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies, certiorari cannot lie as a substitute or a tool to shield the petitioner from the adverse consequences of such neglect or error. The two remedies are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cannot now use this special civil action for certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, as a mode of obtaining a reversal of a decision they omitted to bring to us on appeal. Time and again, this Court has held that the special civil action for certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for a lapsed appeal.[29] A petition under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a proxy for the lost remedy of an appeal under Rule 45, especially if the loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[30] We need not belabor this point for the rule and the exception that proves it are stated quite succinctly in Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong:[31] | |||||