Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMETERIO O. PASIONA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180559 2016-01-20	ANECITA GREGORIO v. MARIA CRISOLOGO VDA. DE CULIG JARDELEZA, J.
In Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[52] we declared that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration is only simple negligence, since it did not necessarily deny due process to his client party who had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings. In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[53] we held that the question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy. Verily, as petitioner retained the services of counsel of its choice, it should, as far as this suit is concerned, bear the consequences of its choice of a faulty option.[54]
	GR No. 171626 2014-08-06	OLONGAPO CITY v. SUBIC WATER BRION, J.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate only if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to the aggrieved party. As we have distinctly explained in the case of Pasiona v. Court of Appeals:[46]
	GR No. 171916 2009-12-04	CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
Petitioner also raises the issue of the impropriety of the remedy resorted to by the respondent which is the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, claiming that the said remedy is inappropriate because there are still other plain, speedy and adequate remedies available, such as an ordinary appeal, the Decision of the RTC having attained its finality. The question, however, is whether the said Decision has indeed attained finality. The importance of the doctrine of the finality of judgment has always been emphasized by this Court. In Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court has expounded on the said doctrine, thus: The Court re-emphasizes the doctrine of finality of judgment. In Alcantara v. Ponce,[36] the Court, citing its much earlier ruling in Arnedo v. Llorente,[37] stressed the importance of said doctrine, to wit:
	GR No. 153653 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG PERALTA, J.
The Resolutions of the CA which petitioner seeks to nullify are orders of dismissal. In Magestrado v. People,[12] the Court explained that an order of dismissal is a final order which is a proper subject of an appeal, not certiorari. This was reiterated in Pasiona v. Court of Appeals,[13] where it was emphasized that if what is being assailed is a decision, final order or resolution of the CA, then appeal to this Court is via a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In cases where an appeal was available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.[14] The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari, although where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be granted.[15]
	GR No. 164560 2009-07-22	ANA DE GUIA SAN PEDRO v. FATIMA G. ASDALA PERALTA, J.
The settled rule is that appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA should be by a verified petition for review on certiorari, as provided for under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, in Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Court expounded as follows: The aggrieved party is proscribed from assailing a decision or final order of the CA via Rule 65, because such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. In this case, petitioner had an adequate remedy, namely, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A petition for review on certiorari, not a special civil action for certiorari was, therefore, the correct remedy.
	GR No. 179556 2009-02-13	CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the fairly recent case of Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court struck down the argument that the aggrieved parties were denied due process of law, because they had the opportunity to be heard at some point in the proceedings, even if they had not been able to fully exhaust all the remedies available by reason of their counsel's negligence or mistake. Thus, in Dela Cruz v. Andres,[32] the Court held that "where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the essence of due process." In the earlier case of Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[33] the decision of the trial court attained finality by reason of counsel's failure to timely file a notice of appeal, and such negligence did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. As elucidated by the Court in said case, to wit:"The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. x x x. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process."