Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRISCILLA T. RIGOR v. TENTH DIVISION OF CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 176508 2015-01-12	SAINT MARY CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN FOUNDATION v. TEODORO T. RIEL BERSAMIN, J.
Thirdly, with the questioned orders of the RTC having finally disposed of the application for judicial reconstitution, nothing more was left for the RTC to do in the case. As of then, therefore, the correct recourse for the petitioner was to appeal to the Court of Appeals by notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration. By allowing the period of appeal to elapse without taking action, it squandered its right to appeal. Its present resort to certiorari is impermissible, for an extraordinary remedy like certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. That the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not an alternative to an available remedy in the ordinary course of law is clear from Section 1 of Rule 65, which requires that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Indeed, no error of judgment by a court will be corrected by certiorari, which corrects only jurisdictional errors.[22]
	GR No. 183608 2013-07-13	FAUSTINO T. CHINGKOE v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
It is settled that the Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action of certiorari if appeal by way of a Petition for Review is available, as the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[28]
	GR No. 184116 2013-06-19	CENTURY IRON WORKS v. ELETO B. BAÑAS BRION, J.
We clarify that the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. Both the petitioners and the CA have confused Rule 45 and Rule 65. In several Supreme Court cases,[29] we have clearly differentiated between a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal from a ruling of a lower tribunal on pure questions of law.[30] It is only in exceptional circumstances[31] that we admit and review questions of fact.
	GR No. 182645 2009-12-04	IN MATTER OF HEIRSHIP OF LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ v. JAIME M. ROBLES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.[11] The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. The reason for rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing practice. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions. Thus, we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is not a mere technicality, but jurisdictional. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision. Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. There are exceptions to this rule, unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule.
	GR No. 182320 2009-09-11	TACLOBAN FAR EAST MARKETING CORPORATION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the outset, it must be stated that petitioners adopted the wrong mode of remedy in bringing the case before this Court. It is well-settled that the proper recourse of an aggrieved party to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[9] The Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action of certiorari if appeal, by way of a petition for review is available, as the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[10]
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The most important phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment.[31] Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party should not, through some clever maneuvers devised by an unsporting loser, be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[32] An unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing of justiciable controversies with finality.[33] Furthermore, a judgment if not executed would just be an empty victory for the prevailing party because execution is the fruit and end of the suit and very aptly called the life of the law.[34]
	GR NO. 172989 2007-06-19	PEOPLE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Besides, even assuming that the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence and erroneously substituted the penalty of imprisonment with a fine, these cannot be corrected on an appeal by the prosecution. Given the far-reaching scope of private respondent's right against double jeopardy, an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie.[23] Whatever error may have been committed by the Court of Appeals was merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. It did not affect the intrinsic validity of the decision. For, as long as it acted within its jurisdiction, any alleged error committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable and may be corrected by a timely appeal.[24]
	GR NO. 149140 2006-09-12	VICTORIA ONG v. ERNESTO BOGÑALBAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As earlier discussed, however, this mitigation is subject to the discretion of the court, depending on what is equitable under the circumstances. It would have been within this Court's power to mitigate the moral and exemplary damages for which petitioner Ong is liable if she had only filed an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It would be an exaggeration to consider such non-mitigation by the Court of Appeals as grave abuse of discretion leading to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, which would have been reviewable by this Court in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65.[57] Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[58] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough -- it must be grave.[59]