This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision, final order, or resolution of the CA is to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[58] And as a rule, if the remedy of an appeal is available, an action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is an original or independent action based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, will not prosper[59] because it is not a substitute for a lost appeal.[60] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Unlike a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent action[44] based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[45] It will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[46] As such, it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was due to one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[47] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that a wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice in certiorari proceedings.[48] The Court has not too infrequently given due course to a petition for certiorari, even when the proper remedy would have been an appeal, where valid and compelling considerations would warrant such a recourse.[49] Moreover, the Court allowed a Rule 65 petition, despite the availability of plain, speedy or adequate remedy, in view of the importance of the issues raised therein.[50] The rules were also relaxed by the Court after considering the public interest involved in the case;[51] when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the broader interest of justice so requires; when the writs issued are null and void; or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[52] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is equally elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari. A writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. By its nature, a petition for certiorari lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[41] A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[42] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[43] The availability to petitioner Salvacion of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 from the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan effectively foreclosed her right to resort to a petition for certiorari. | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.) It is elementary in remedial law that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[21] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[22] And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[23] this Court has, before,[24] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;[25] this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus -- When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. Although under Section 5,[23] Rule 56, an erroneous appeal may be dismissed outright, this Court shall not exercise such option; but instead, shall treat the present petition as a petition for mandamus to obviate further litigation between the parties.[24] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's resort to a petition under Rule 65 is obviously a play to make up for the loss of the right to file an appeal via a petition under Rule 45. However, a special civil action under Rule 65 can not cure petitioner's failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[18] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case.[51] A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[52] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[38] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[39] Moreover, petitioner Alfredo failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of making an appeal. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, the proper remedy in the instant case should have been the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45. This Court has repeatedly ruled that reviews under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be made a substitute for a petitioner's failure to timely appeal under Rule 45.[13] Thus, under Sec. 5(f) of Rule 56,[14] a petition for certiorari interposed when an appeal is proper and available may be dismissed. | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We are not unmindful of instances when certiorari was granted despite the availability of appeal, such as (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. [21] However, none of these recognized exceptions attends the case at bar. AMA has sadly failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule. | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that every lawyer should be familiar with the distinctions between the two remedies for it is not the duty of the courts to determine under which rule the petition should fall.[24] Petitioner's ploy was fatal to its cause. An appeal taken either to this Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.[25] Thus, the alternative petition filed in the CA, being an inappropriate mode of appeal, should have been dismissed outright by the CA. | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed there are instances when certiorari was granted despite the availability of appeal such as: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. None of these recognized exceptions, however, is present in the case at bar. Petitioner failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule, and make available a petition for certiorari in lieu of taking an appeal.[24] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 65, the petitioners must show that they have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the error that they seek to correct. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy, and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[13] In this case, an appeal under Rule 45 by way of petition for review on certiorari was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[14] When the petitioners received on November 15, 1999 a copy of the CA Resolution dated November 8, 1999 denying their Motion for Reconsideration, and absent any motion for extension, they had until November 30, 1999, or 15 days later, within which to perfect their appeal. They did not. What they chose to do was to file a "Petition for Certiorari" "based on Section 1, Rule 65" on December 7, 1999, repeating in essence the issues and arguments already heard by the CA. The petitioners cannot lodge a special civil action of certiorari to make good the loss of the right of ordinary appeal. In view of this serious procedural error, the instant petition should be dismissed. | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Neither can the Court subscribe to SPMC's claim of substantial compliance or to its plea for a liberal application of the rules. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[16] Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance such as the requirement on non-forum shopping,[17] as well as verification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[18] | |||||
|
2006-04-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, petitioners interposed the present special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 as an alternative to their petition not because it is the speedy and adequate remedy but to make up for the loss of their right of an ordinary appeal. It is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case. A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot cure a party's failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by a party's neglect or error in the choice of remedies. There are exceptions to this rule: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. None of these recognized exceptions, however, is present in the case at bar. Petitioners failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to make available a petition for certiorari in lieu of taking an appeal. [26] | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
|||||
| Petitioners assail the 21 May 2001 Decision and the 15 March 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari. For a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 to issue, petitioners must show that they have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against their perceived grievance.[8] Certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available.[9] In A.F. Sanchez Brokerage, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Court explained:In another vein, the rule is well settled that in a petition for certiorari, the petitioner must prove not merely reversible error but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it is noted that the Verification and Certification (of Non-Forum Shopping) was signed by Antonio Din, Jr., one of the petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor General that the petition is defective. Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din, the Vice-Mayor of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, signed the certification. There is no showing that he was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the latter and to sign the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. We find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. In Chua v. Romualdo-Santos, et al.,[54] in which we quoted Loquias, we likewise upheld the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of a petition for certiorari:In the petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals, the verification/certification was signed only by petitioner Socorro Chua. There was no showing that petitioner Chua was authorized by her co-petitioners to represent the latter and sign the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Chua knew, to the best of her knowledge, whether her co-petitioners had the same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. Finally, in PET PLANS v. Court of Appeals,[55] we ruled: | |||||
|
2005-08-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that liberal construction of the Rules may be invoked in situations wherein there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[4] | |||||