Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GENALYN D. YOUNG v. SPS. MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181956 2010-11-11	VICTORIA L. TEH v. NATIVIDAD TEH TAN NACHURA, J.
The Court reiterates that a special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse.[42] The general rule is that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party.[43] It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal,[44] especially if the party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.[45]
	GR No. 149984 2008-11-28	SPS. ROLANDO M. ZOSA AND LUISA Y. ZOSA v. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA NACHURA, J.
The petitions are denied. The present controversy is on all fours with Young v. Sy,[28] in which we ruled that the successive filing of a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari both to assail the trial court's dismissal order for non-suit constitutes forum shopping. Thus,
	GR No. 150746 2008-10-15	SIMEON NICOLAS CHAN v. YOLANDA CHAN NACHURA, J.
As its very name denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to supplement or add something to the primary pleading. A supplement exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements. It is but a continuation of the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original complaint. More importantly, a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined with the original pleading remained as issues to be tried in the action.[35]
	GR No. 176150 2008-06-25	IBARRA P. ORTEGA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION CARPIO MORALES, J.
In not granting imprimatur to this type of unorthodox strategy, the Court ruled, in a similar case,[31] that a party should not join both petitions in one pleading. A petition cannot be subsumed simultaneously under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, nor may it delegate upon the court the task of determining under which rule the petition should fall.[32] It is a firm judicial policy that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[33]