Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIA VICTORIA CANO-GUTIERREZ v. HERMINIO A. GUTIERREZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 147530 2005-06-29	PABLO B. CASIMINA v. EMILIO B. LEGASPI CORONA, J.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person.[8] As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant.[9] It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.[10] The Rules specify two modes for effecting substituted service of summons, to wit: a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or
	GR No. 145363 2004-02-23	MERCEDES B. GONZALES v. NILO L. ROSAS QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner's contentions are untenable. The Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial agency covered by the procedure outlined in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[23] As a rule, appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, in administrative disciplinary cases, should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The rule was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.[24] Thus, certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[25] Unfortunately, petitioner failed to appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of the assailed decision. Certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, especially if such lapse was occasioned by petitioner's neglect or error in the choice of remedies, for the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[26]
	GR No. 150656 2003-04-29	MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO B. LICAROS CARPIO, J.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[9]
	GR No. 139760 2001-10-05	FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, the remedy of certiorari was no longer available to petitioners. It is well-settled that the special civil action for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[11] In a recent case, we held: Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus, on the ground that the proper remedy was to appeal within fifteen (15) days. The lapse of the reglementary period was of no moment. A basic requisite for the special civil action of certiorari to lie is that there be no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is a remedy of last recourse and is a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. It is not intended to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge's findings or conclusions.[12]