This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-04-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The factual circumstances in the cases of Heirs of Akut v. Court of Appeals[9] and Ampeloquio v. Court of Appeals,[10] cited by petitioner in pleading liberality, are markedly different from this case. In Heirs of Akut, petitioners were not able to file an answer within the reglementary period because they failed to obtain the services of counsel on time and two of the petitioners were then sick. In Ampeloquio, the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss was mistakenly served upon one of its counsels on record and not upon the lawyer in charge of the case. Consequently, the answer was not filed on time. In both cases, there was no indication that the failure to answer was intended to delay the case. | |||||
|
2006-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals then cited Sps. Ampeloquio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[18] wherein the Court held that if every error committed by the trial court were to be a proper object of review by certiorari, then trial would never come to an end and the appellate court dockets would be clogged with petitions challenging every interlocutory order of the trial court. It concluded that the acts of Judge Kapili did not constitute grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court, in numerous cases, has afforded party-litigants the amplest opportunity to enable them to have their cases justly determined, free from the constraints of technicalities. In this regard, we have often admonished courts to be liberal in setting aside orders of default as default judgments are frowned upon and looked with disfavor for they may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant. Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice. Oft-cited is the rule that it is a far better and more prudent course of action for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.[4] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
BELLOSILLO , J. |
||||
| amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal.[11] The distinction is clear: A petition for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction while a petition for review seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's findings. Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.[12] Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[13] Petitioner's rights can be more appropriately addressed in the appeal. True, petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court in the interest of speedy justice. It conjectures that any further delay in the resolution of the instant petition will be prejudicial not only to petitioner but to all those similarly situated. Thus petitioner brought | |||||