Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MADRIGAL TRANSPORT v. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION

This case has been cited 28 times or more.

	GR No. 177425 2014-06-18	ALONZO GIPA v. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
It must, however, be noted at the outset that the caption of the present Petition includes Placer as one of the petitioners. In fact, the other petitioners even authorized her to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in their behalf.[27] A review of the records, however, shows that she was not one of the defendants before the RTC. Her only participation therein was that she represented her sister Rosita as one of the defendants by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney which the latter executed in her favor.[28] Notably in the present Petition, Placer appears to have been impleaded in her personal capacity and not as Rosita's representative. This cannot be done. It bears emphasizing that an appeal on certiorari, as in this case, is a continuation of the original suit.[29] Hence, the parties in the original suit must also be the parties in such an appeal.[30] Placer, therefore, not being a party in the complaint before the RTC has no personality to continue the same on appeal and cannot be considered as a petitioner. At the most, her only role in this Petition was to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping for and in behalf of petitioners.
	GR No. 196200 2013-09-11	ERNESTO DY v. GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS MENDOZA, J.
There are considerable differences between an ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari which have been exhaustively discussed by this Court in countless cases. The remedy for errors of judgment, whether based on the law or the facts of the case or on the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision, is an ordinary appeal.[21] In contrast, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action designed to correct errors of jurisdiction, defined to be those "in which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of in excess of jurisdiction."[22] A court or tribunal can only be considered to have acted with grave abuse of discretion if its exercise of judgment was so whimsical and capricious as to be equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be extremely patent and gross that it would amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."[23]
	GR No. 160067 2010-11-17	NELSON IMPERIAL v. MARICEL M. JOSON PEREZ, J.
It bears emphasizing at the outset that the petitions for certiorari and prohibition petitioners filed before the CA were all anchored on the grave abuse of discretion supposedly imputable against the RTCs of Naga, Lucena and Parañaque for issuing the rulings therein assailed. Like prohibition,[43] however, the rule is settled that certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Because their function is limited to keeping inferior courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction,[44] the writs therefor may be issued only in cases of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the context of said special civil actions, it has been consistently held that grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[45]
	GR No. 180711 2010-06-22	RUDOLFO I. BELUSO v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
It is well settled that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.[16] The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case.[17]
	GR No. 191771 2010-05-06	LIBERAL PARTY v. COMELEC BRION, J.
In Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[30] the Court, through former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, gave a very succinct exposition of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in relation to errors of law. The Court then said: A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
	GR No. 157449 2010-04-06	NEMESIO GOCO v. CA BRION, J.
Since an order of dismissal by the trial court is a final order from which an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 can be taken,[19] the petitioners should have taken this avenue against the RTC order of September 7, 1999 instead of resorting to a petition for certiorari before the CA. Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 is unequivocal in directing the dismissal of an inappropriate mode of appeal: 4. Erroneous Appeals - An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.
	GR No. 165697 2009-08-04	ANTONIO NAVARRO v. METROPOLITAN BANK PERALTA, J.
In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Belus[37] and Strongworld Construction Corporation v. Perello,[38] the Court held that where the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; or that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; or that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, such dismissal operates as one with prejudice and which therefore precludes the filing of another action based on the same claim. Hence, according to Madrigal v. Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[39] such dismissal already constitutes res judicata.
	GR No. 175910 2009-07-30	ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE PERALTA, J.
An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court.[31] On the other hand, an order which does not dispose of the case completely and indicates that other things remain to be done by the court as regards the merits, is interlocutory. Interlocutory refers to something between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision on the whole controversy.[32]
	GR NO. 151973 2009-07-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO PERALTA, J.
Time and again, this Court has emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. That action is not a substitute for a lost appeal in general; it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum.[60] In Madrigal Transport Inc., v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[61] We held that where an appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. Obviously, this remedy was resorted to by the petitioner due to the fact that its notice of appeal was dismissed by the RTC for having been filed out of time.
	GR No. 170532 2009-04-24	PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF MARINDUQUE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Previously, under Section 36 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464 or the Real Property Tax Code, the proper mode of appeal from a decision rendered by the CBAA was by special civil action for certiorari filed directly with the Court.[34] However, with the passage of R.A. No. 7902,[35] granting the CA exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of boards and commissions, the Court issued Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95[36] which provides under paragraphs 1[37] and 5[38] that appeal from a decision of the CBAA shall be by Petition for Review with the CA. Thus, from the final judgment of the CA, appeal to the Court on questions of law is by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[39] The availability of such remedy bars recourse to a special civil action for certiorari even if one of the grounds invoked is grave abuse of discretion.[40]
	GR No. 150334 2009-03-20	DOLLY A. OCAMPO v. CA NACHURA, J.
Petitioners must understand that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an appeal and, as such, it is merely a continuation of an original suit.[21] The original suit is the case appealed from and, in the case at bench, it is the petition for certiorari filed by Peñas before the CA that would have given rise to the suit in which the decision is the subject of petitioners' appeal. Not being parties to that original suit, they have no personality to continue the same through an appeal.
	GR No. 169498 2008-12-11	OSCAR DELOS SANTOS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari -- When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. [21]
	GR No. 177414 2008-11-14	NOEL E. MORA v. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
An independent action for certiorari may of course be availed of when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,[22] if the decision of the voluntary arbitrator involves a question of jurisdiction. What petitioner is contesting, however, is the finding that he voluntarily resigned. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of law or fact which is a mistake of judgment, the proper remedy should be appeal.[23] The appellate court should thus have dismissed outright the petition for certiorari, as the decision of the VA had already become final and executory.
	GR No. 168546 2008-07-23	MICHAEL PADUA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
For certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27]
	GR No. 156470 2008-04-30	FREDERICK DAEL v. SPS. BENEDICTO and VILMA BELTRAN QUISUMBING, J.
As to the second issue, petitioner's recourse to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is proper. An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order. It is not interlocutory because the proceedings were terminated; it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order. [19] Under the Rules of Court, a party may directly appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law. [20]
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
[16] G.R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 123.
	GR Nos. 163972-77 2008-03-28	JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
and of its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts,[19] in order to afford equal justice to petitioner.
	GR No. 170244 2007-11-28	ILOILO LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Settled is the rule that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action for certiorari will not be entertained remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal was available, as in this case, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.[23] Petitioner's resort to this Court by Petition for Certiorari was a fatal procedural error, and the instant petition must, therefore, fail.
	GR No. 157775 2007-10-19	LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. LEYECO IV EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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 [37] and certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal, [38] 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.[39]
	GR No. 143688 2007-08-17	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. BELINDA D. BUNA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
x x x x. (Emphasis supplied) A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law.[18] The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action of certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[19] Failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing of the special civil action of certiorari is a fatal infirmity.[20] This rule is subject to certain recognized exceptions, to wit:a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR NO. 153914 2007-07-31	FELIPE REGIS v. CA NACHURA, J.
At the outset, we reiterate that the special civil action for certiorari cannot be availed of even if it is based upon lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion when the remedy of appeal is available.[10] Certiorari is proper only if there is no appeal, or when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[11] Regis cannot invoke the extraordinary writ of certiorari as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
	GR No. 128587 2007-03-16	PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
In Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[25] we have enumerated the distinction between the two remedies/actions, to wit: Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished
	GR NO. 154235-36 2006-08-16	ALFREDO O. ESTRERA v. LEONARDO DEMECILLO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The axiomatic rule, as stated in Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[18] is that:x x x Where appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. Basic is the rule that certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal.[19] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 157075 2006-07-17	RAMCAR v. HI-POWER MARKETING TINGA, J.
The present petition must be dismissed for failure of Ramcar to prove that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose as its function is limited to keeping the inferior courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction.[22]
	GR NO. 149493 2006-06-22	RAFAELITO M. GARAYBLAS v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CALLEJO, SR., J.
We agree with respondents' contention that the May 28, 2001 Order of the trial court dismissing the petition for injunction for being moot and academic is a final order. The Order finally disposed of the case so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In fine, the Order ended the litigation.[30]
	GR NO. 165606 2006-02-06	DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,[30] not errors of judgment.[31] Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[32] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33] The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[34]
	GR No. 152992 2005-07-28	LEONARDO DAVID v. NELSON TINGA, J.
In addition, a petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal from a lower court decision. Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. The remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefore is grave abuse of discretion.[34]
	GR NO. 157752 2005-03-16	SALLY MIGUEL v. JCT GROUP PANGANIBAN, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That is, power is arbitrarily or despotically exercised by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and caprice is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[12]