Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELMER F. CERVANTES v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190795 2011-07-06	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) SERENO, J.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari may be filed when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law". The "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. [30] Thus, it is a well-settled rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. [31] The purpose of this rule is to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. [32] However, this requirement is not an ironclad rule. The prior filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with if petitioners are able to show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so. [33] The Court may brush aside the procedural barrier and take cognizance of the petition if it raises an issue of paramount importance and constitutional significance. [34] Thus: True, we had, on certain occasions, entertained direct recourse to this Court as an exception to the rule on hierarchy of courts. In those exceptional cases, however, we recognized an exception because it was dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. [35]
	GR No. 190795 2011-07-06	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) SERENO, J.
In Cervantes v. CA, [42] this Court ruled: It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules. Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.
	GR No. 168726 2010-03-05	PIO DELOS REYES v. WALDO Q. FLORES CARPIO, J.
Petitioners submit they no longer filed a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order because it would have been useless. Petitioners point out that the 30 September 2004 order warned that no further pleadings would be entertained. We are not convinced that this constitutes an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[23] The language of the order notwithstanding, petitioners are bound by procedural rules and may not disregard the same on a wrong assumption that a motion for reconsideration might no longer be entertained. Even so, they should have awaited the denial of their motion for reconsideration before filing the extraordinary remedy of petition for certiorari.
	GR No. 178984 2009-08-19	ERLINDA MAPAGAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by this Court.[34] Decisions that have long become final and executory cannot be annulled by courts, and the appellate court is deprived of jurisdiction to alter the trial court's final judgment.[35] This doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some point in time.[36]
	GR No. 157376 2007-10-02	CORAZON C. SIM v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Rule 65, the remedy of filing a special civil action for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal; or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[7] A "plain" and "adequate remedy" is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.[8] This is to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself.[9]
	GR NO. 154006 2006-11-02	STAR PAPER CORPORATION v. CARLITO ESPIRITU AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There are recognized exceptions to the general rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or Resolution is an indispensable condition. These exceptions, as enumerated in Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, [7] are:(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR NO. 170096-97 2006-03-03	RICARDO SANTOS v. ILUMINADA CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The case of Cervantes v. Court of Appeals,[11] citing Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga,[12] clarified that "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in the foregoing Rule is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or Resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari,[13] subject to certain exceptions, to wit:(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;