Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 202791 2013-06-10	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. LEANDRO LEGASPI MENDOZA, J.
The CA, therefore, could grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to or decisive of the controversy; and it cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence of the parties. Necessarily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record.[13] Notably, if the CA grants the petition and nullifies the decision or resolution of the NLRC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the decision or resolution of the NLRC is, in contemplation of law, null and void ab initio; hence, the decision or resolution never became final and executory.[14]
	GR No. 173351 2010-07-29	BF CITILAND CORPORATION v. MARILYN B. OTAKE CARPIO, J.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction from further proceeding has been issued against the public respondent.[35] A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is, without a doubt, an original action.[36]
	GR No. 179169 2010-03-03	LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER NACHURA, J.
decision or resolution of the NLRC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the decision or resolution of the NLRC is, in contemplation of law, null and void ab initio; hence, the decision or resolution never became final and executory.[23]
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or final order.[17] With these distinctions, it is plainly discernible why a party is precluded from filing a petition for certiorari when appeal is available, or why the two remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[18] Where appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground availed of is grave abuse of discretion.[19]
	GR NO. 165881 2006-04-19	OSCAR VILLAMARIA v. VS.CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that the recourse to a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proscribed by the remedy of appeal under Rule 45. As the Court elaborated in Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[30]
	GR NO. 162580 2006-01-27	ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Ordinarily, the proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was granted by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as alleged in this case, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.[11] This is based on the premise that in issuing the assailed decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of lack of jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A remedy is considered plain, speedy, and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effect of the judgment and the acts of the lower court.[12]
	GR No. 132467 2004-10-18	SOCORRO CHUA v. ROMUALDO SANTOS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The instant "alternative" petition is destined to fail. The petitioners cannot delegate upon the Court the task of determining under which rule the petition should fall. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[18] Under Rule 56, Sec. 5(f) of the Revised Rules of Court, a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, as in this case, merits an outright dismissal.
	GR No. 148738 2004-06-29	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The normal consequences of illegal dismissal are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment of backwages computed from the time the employee's compensation was withheld from him.[39] Since respondent Paras' dismissal from employment is illegal, he is entitled to reinstatement and to be paid backwages from the time of his dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement.