Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUAN M. CASIL v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
While the general rule proscribes the appeal of an interlocutory order, there are also recognized exceptions to that rule. Where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition may exceptionally be allowed.[126] This Court recognizes that, under certain situations, recourse to extraordinary legal remedies, such as a petition for certiorari, is considered proper to question the denial of a motion to quash (or any other interlocutory order) in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice;"[127] or to promote public welfare and public policy;[128] or when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof;"[129] or when the order was rendered with grave abuse of discretion.[130] Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order: (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[131]
	GR No. 173176 2008-08-26	JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the general rule proscribes the appeal of an interlocutory order, there are also recognized exceptions to the same. The general rule is not absolute. Where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition may exceptionally be allowed.[41] This Court recognizes that under certain situations, recourse to extraordinary legal remedies, such as a petition for certiorari, is considered proper to question the denial of a motion to quash (or any other interlocutory order) in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";[42] or to promote public welfare and public policy;[43] or when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof";[44] or when the order was rendered with grave abuse of discretion.[45] Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[46]
	GR NO. 167724 2006-06-27	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The appropriate function of a certiorari writ is to relieve aggrieved parties from the injustice arising from errors of law committed in proceedings affecting justiciable rights when no other means for an adequate and speedy relief is open. It is founded upon a sense of justice, to release against wrongs otherwise irreconcilable, wrongs which go unredressed because of want of adequate remedy which would be a grave reproach to any system of jurisprudence.[35] The aggrieved party is entitled to a writ of certiorari where the trial court commits a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of litis pendentia. An appeal while available eventually is cumbersome and inadequate for it requires the parties to undergo a useless and time-consuming and expensive trial. The second case constitutes a rude if not debilitating imposition on the trial and the docket of the judiciary.[36]
	GR No. 136228 2001-01-30	EMMA GALLARDO-CORRO v. EFREN DON L. GALLARDO BELLOSILLO, J.
The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two (2) grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law, namely, (a) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (public policy and necessity which make it the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and, (b) Nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa (the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause).[11] For the doctrine to apply, the following requisites must concur: (a) there must be a final judgment or order; (b) the Court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) the judgment or order must be on the merits; and, (d) there must be between the two (2) cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of causes of action.[12]
	GR No. 111715 2000-06-08	MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO and the HEIRS OF JOSE P. BERNARDO namely v. SANTOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
As regards the private respondents' prayer for the reversal of the denial of their motion to dismiss, the general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and hence, it cannot be questioned in a special civil action of certiorari. Neither can a denial of a motion to dismiss be subject of an appeal unless and until a final judgment or order is rendered. However, that rule is not absolute. An exception is when the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss.[45] As we shall show later, the main thrust of the petition was to question the trial court's jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss.