Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. LEYECO IV EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 168612 2014-12-10	PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. CA LEONEN, J.
As an exception to the rule, this court has allowed petitions for certiorari to be filed in lieu of an appeal "(a) when the public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority."[101]
	GR No. 163431 2013-08-28	NATHANIEL N. DONGON v. RAPID MOVERS BERSAMIN, J.
Ordinarily, an original action for certiorari will not prosper if the remedy of appeal is available, for an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are mutually exclusive, not alternative nor successive, remedies.[15] On several occasions, however, the Court has treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari when: (a) the petition has been filed within the 15-day reglementary period;[16] (b) public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate such treatment; (c) the broader interests of justice require such treatment; (d) the writs issued were null and void; or (e) the questioned decision or order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[17]
	GR No. 172880 2010-08-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CEBU PRINTING PERALTA, J.
The same was also applied in Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LEYECO IV Employees Union-ALU,[27] thus: In addition, while the settled rule is that an independent action for certiorari may be availed of only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal, there are a few significant exceptions when the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal, namely: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[28]