Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAYOR SOBAIDA T. BALINDONG OF MUNICIPALITY OF TAGOLOAN v. VICE GOVERNOR TIMOTEO D. DACALOS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 200727 2013-03-04	IRENE VILLAMAR-SANDOVAL v. JOSE CAILIPAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well-settled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[26] The simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal.[27]
	GR No. 165423 2011-01-19	NILO PADRE v. FRUCTOSA BAILLO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, "[t]he existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes a resort to certiorari."[22] The court a quo could have instead dismissed Nilo's petition on the ground that this question should have been raised by way of an appeal.[23] This rule is subject to exceptions, such as "when the writs issued are null and void or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority."[24] As will be later on discussed, the RTC, although it ultimately erred in its judgment, was nevertheless correct in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari. The exceptions we mentioned apply in the case at bar, as it turns out that petitioner's jurisdictional objection has compelling basis.
	GR NO. 162814-17 2005-08-25	JOSE F. MANACOP v. EQUITABLE PCIBANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal.[43] It is elementary that for certiorari to prosper, it is not enough that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the requirement that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law must likewise be satisfied.[44]