This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2009-06-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Under these clear and unambiguous terms, the PBA should have appealed the ruling of respondent Gaite of the OP to the CA within 15 days from notice,[6] and its failure to comply with the prescribed process is a ground for the dismissal of the petition.[7] Rule 65 - the legal basis for the present petition - itself bars its use as a mode of review when an appeal or any other remedy at law is available.[8] While jurisprudence has recognized exceptions to this rule, the exceptions - like any other exception - must be strictly, rather than liberally, applied. [9] In other words, a petitioner wrongly filing a Rule 65 petition must show a clear entitlement to the jurisprudentially-recognized exceptions. These exceptions are: when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the interests of substantial justice so require; and when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[10] In applying these exceptions, the words of this Court in Lapid v. Laurea[11] are worth repeating and remembering:Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. [Emphasis supplied.] | |||||
|
2009-03-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Subsequently, in Alcantara, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[14] and Nippon Paint Employees Union v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court reiterated the aforequoted ruling. In Alcantara, the Court held that notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 43, the ruling in Luzon Development Bank still stands. The Court explained, thus:The provisions may be new to the Rules of Court but it is far from being a new law. Section 2, Rules 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as presently worded, is nothing more but a reiteration of the exception to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, as provided for in Section 9, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902: | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v. Court of Appeals,[21] we clarified:It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." As previously ruled by this Court: | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is well to point out that with petitioner's erroneous filing of a motion for extension of time and with her non-filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review from the CA's decision, the challenged decision has already attained finality and may no longer be reviewed by this Court. The instant Rule 65 petition cannot even substitute for the lost appeal[41] certiorari is not a procedural device to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor.[42] When a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court will have the power to review the said judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.[43] | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Employees' Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. (Emphasis supplied) As such, decisions handed down by voluntary arbitrators fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA. This decision was taken into consideration in approving Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.[12] Thus:SECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act Number 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Emphasis supplied) This rule was cited in Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana,[13] Manila Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo,[14] and Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v. Court of Appeals.[15] These cases held that the proper remedy from the adverse decision of a voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus, petitioner's contention that it may avail of a petition for review under Rule 43 under the circumstances of this case is correct. | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, evident from the records is the fact that petitioners filed the instant certiorari petition to remedy their lapsed appeal. Petitioners received the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2000.[28] Following the Rules, petitioners had fifteen (15) days, or up to November 18, 2000 to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.[29] However, no appeal was ever filed. Instead, petitioners instituted the instant Petition for certiorari on January 2, 2001[30] to resuscitate their lost appeal. Well-settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of to substitute a lost appeal.[31] Certiorari is not a procedural devise to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor.[32] | |||||
|
2007-01-22 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We address the Rule 65 petition in G.R. No. 167994 first from the remedial law perspective. It deserves to be dismissed on procedural grounds, as it was filed in lieu of appeal which is the prescribed remedy and at that far beyond the reglementary period. It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. As 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."[25] The Arbitration Law specifically provides for an appeal by certiorari, i.e., a petition for review under certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that raises pure questions of law.[26] There is no merit to Gonzales's argument that the use of the permissive term "may" in Sec. 29, R.A. No. 876 in the filing of appeals does not prohibit nor discount the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[27] Proper interpretation of the aforesaid provision of law shows that the term "may" refers only to the filing of an appeal, not to the mode of review to be employed. Indeed, the use of "may" merely reiterates the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with law. | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with respondent's contention that the remedy of petitioner from the CA decision was to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and not the independent action of certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioner had 15 days from receipt of the CA resolution denying his motion for the reconsideration within which to file the petition under Rule 45.[28] But instead of doing so, he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on November 22, 2004, which did not, however, suspend the running of the 15-day reglementary period; consequently, the CA decision became final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal. Thus, on this procedural lapse, the instant petition stands to be dismissed.[29] | |||||