This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, while an affidavit of service is required merely as proof that service has been made on the other party, it is nonetheless essential to due process and the orderly administration of justice.[19] | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, we find the matters raised by petitioner in her argumentation to be mainly questions of fact which are not proper in a petition of this nature. Petitioner is basically questioning the assessment and evaluation made by the Office of the Ombudsman of the pieces of evidence submitted at the reinvestigation. The Office of the Ombudsman found that the evidence on hand is sufficient to justify a probable cause to indict petitioner. Relying on the Report of Prosecutor Bayag, Jr., petitioner contended otherwise. At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing that where what is being questioned is the sufficiency of evidence, it is a question of fact.[10] A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not include review of the correctness of a board or tribunal's evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[11] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper when (1) any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding.[45] | |||||