This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available in extraordinary cases where a tribunal, board or officer, among others, completely acted without jurisdiction. Ineluctably, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void.[17] While errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari.[18] Considering that the OP had no jurisdiction to entertain private respondent's appeal, certiorari lies to correct such jurisdictional error. The CA thus erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of being an improper remedy. | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A rule of thumb for every petition brought under Rule 65 is the unavailability of an appeal or any "plain, speedy, and adequate remedy."[34] Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are extraordinary remedies that historically require extraordinary facts to be shown[35] in order to correct errors of jurisdiction.[36] The law also dictates the necessary steps before an extraordinary remedy may be issued.[37] To be sure, the availability of other remedies does not always lend itself to the impropriety of a Rule 65 petition.[38] If, for instance, the remedy is insufficient or would be proven useless,[39] then the petition will be given due course.[40] | |||||