This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-03-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' contention lacks basis. In Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[19] where the issue of validity of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was questioned in an application for the issuance of a Writ of Possession, we held that: x x x it bears stressing that a certification on non-forum shopping is required only in a complaint or a petition which is an initiatory pleading. In this case, the subject petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by private respondent is not an initiatory pleading. Although private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition, it is more properly a motion. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but its purpose. The purpose of a motion is not to initiate litigation, but to bring up a matter arising in the progress of the case where the motion is filed.[20] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-08-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Green Asia Construction & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[11] the Court categorically ruled that under Section 8, Act No. 3135, the remedy of a party from the trial court's order granting the issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said petition. This is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy envisioned in Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and since petitioner could have availed himself of such procedure, he is not entitled to the remedy of certiorari. On this point alone, the CA acted properly in dismissing the subject petition for certiorari. | |||||