Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AGUS DWIKARNA v. ANDREA D. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 168726 2010-03-05	PIO DELOS REYES v. WALDO Q. FLORES CARPIO, J.
We have held in a litany of cases that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus are available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration. The writ of certiorari does not lie where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error.[19] Likewise, mandamus is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford redress because generally, a writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.[20] However, there are several exceptions where a petition for certiorari will lie without the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration, to wit: a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR No. 167569 2009-09-04	CARLOS T. GO v. LUIS T. RAMOS QUISUMBING, J.
We have held in a litany of cases that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The writ of certiorari does not lie where an appeal may be taken or where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error.[97]
	GR No. 182267 2009-08-28	PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As we have held in numerous cases, a special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal.[15] We have often enough reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure lies only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[16] Certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[17] In this case, petitioner utterly failed to provide any justification for her resort to a special civil action for certiorari, when the remedy of appeal by petition for review was clearly available.
	GR No. 178405 2008-10-15	REYNALDO DEUS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Basic is the rule that the mode of appeal in cases decided by the regional trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is by a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment appealed from.[33] On the other hand, the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The writ of certiorari does not lie where an appeal may be taken or where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error.[34]
	GR NO. 154837 2007-03-22	ANG BIAT HUAN SONS INDUSTRIES v. CA CORONA, J.
As a rule, a petition for certiorari will not lie where an appeal is an adequate remedy such as when an error of judgment or procedure is involved.[15] Ordinarily, the proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[16] Petitioner should have thus questioned the CA's resolutions via Rule 45. Well-entrenched is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari cannot stand as substitute for a lost appeal.[17]
	GR NO. 158290 2006-10-23	HILARION M. HENARES v. LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING QUISUMBING, J.
Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.[27] The need for future changes in both legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition.
	GR NO. 160922 2006-02-27	JEANY-VI G. KIANI v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
In its Comment on the petition filed on December 10, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers that it agrees with the ruling of the CA and prays that it be affirmed. Citing the ruling of this Court in Dwikarna v. Domingo,[27] the OSG posits that the remedy of petitioner from the Summary Deportation Order of the BOC was to appeal to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. It maintains that it was inappropriate for petitioner to assail the arrest and detention of her husband after the filing of the Charge Sheet with the BSI.
	GR NO. 156394 2005-01-21	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has often enough reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65[26] lies only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27] Certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[28]