This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-06-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners ask for leniency from this Court, asking for a liberal application of the rules.[23] However, it is quite apparent that petitioners offer no explanation as to why they did not appeal under Rule 45. Petitioners' Petition, Reply[24] and Memorandum[25] are all silent on this point, probably hoping that the same would go unnoticed by respondents and by this Court. The attempt to skirt away from the fact that the 15-day period to file an appeal under Rule 45 had already lapsed is made even more apparent when even after the same was raised in issue by respondents in their Comment[26] and memorandum, petitioners did not squarely address the same, nor offer any explanation for such omission. In Jan-Dec Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,[27] this Court explained why a liberal application of the rules cannot be made to a petition which offers no explanation for the non-observance of the rules, to wit: While there are instances where the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal, the long line of decisions denying the special civil action for certiorari, either before appeal was availed of or in instances where the appeal period had lapsed, far outnumbers the instances where certiorari was given due course. The few significant exceptions are: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Concededly, the NPC may have pursued the wrong remedy when it filed a petition for certiorari instead of an appeal since the ruling on attorney's fees is already a ruling on the merits. However, we find that the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered NPC solidarily liable with the plaintiffs for the payment of the attorney's fees. The rule that a petition for certiorari is dismissible when the mode of appeal is available admits of exceptions, to wit: (a) when the writs issued are null; and, (b) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[37] Clearly, respondent has shown its entitlement to the exceptions. | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As found by the RTC in its initial November 25, 2003 order, virtually all the material allegations in the amended complaint are triable issues of facts, a reality indicating that it sufficiently states a cause or causes of action. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants.[30] | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| One final note. To obviate confusion, we clarify that the petitioners, although correct in moving for the dissolution of the trust after the twenty-year period, are not necessarily declared as intestate heirs of the decedent. Our remand of the case to the RTC means that the probate court should now make a determination of the heirship of the intestate heirs of the decedent where petitioners, and all others claiming to be heirs of the decedent, should establish their status as such consistent with our ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. del Rosario.[17] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Jan-Dec Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals[33] we ruled in this wise:As a rule, the remedy from a judgment or final order of the CA is appeal via petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules. | |||||