Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALANT MARITIME SERVICES

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 190253 2014-06-11	JUAN TRAJANO v. UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB BRION, J.
Contrary to Uniwide's claim, the records of the case show that the petition's verification page contains Trajano's competent evidence of identity, specifically, Passport No. XX041470.[47] Trajano's failure to furnish Uniwide a copy of the petition containing his competent evidence of identity is a minor error that this Court may and chooses to brush aside in the interest of substantial justice. This Court has, in proper instances, relaxed the application of the Rules of Procedure when the party has shown substantial compliance with it.[48] In these cases, we have held that the rules of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for which it had been enacted, i.e., to ensure the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of cases.[49] We maintain this ruling in this procedural aspect of this case.
	GR No. 175977 2013-08-19	HADJI PANGSAYAN T. ABDULRAHMAN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO SERENO, C.J.
The acceptance of a petition for certiorari, and necessarily the grant of due course thereto, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[39] Thus, the court may reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari (1) when there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, such as violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court circulars.[40]
	GR No. 153852 2012-10-24	SPS. HUMBERTO P. DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS v. METROPOLITAN BANK BERSAMIN, J.
Considering that the requisites must concurrently be attendant, the herein petitioners' stance that a writ of certiorari should have been issued even if the CA found no showing of grave abuse of discretion is absurd. The commission of grave abuse of discretion was a fundamental requisite for the writ of certiorari to issue against the RTC. Without their strong showing either of the RTC's lack or excess of jurisdiction, or of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the writ of certiorari would not issue for being bereft of legal and factual bases. We need to emphasize, too, that with certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, they must strictly observe the rules laid down by law for granting the relief sought.[24]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari[23] with the CA, reiterating the constitutional challenge against the subject clause.[24] After initially dismissing the petition on a technicality, the CA eventually gave due course to it, as directed by this Court in its Resolution dated August 7, 2003 which granted the petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 151833, filed by petitioner.
	GR No. 169498 2008-12-11	OSCAR DELOS SANTOS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Although the court has absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari, in general, it does so only (1) when the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court Circulars. One of the procedural errors for which the court could dismiss a petition for certiorari is the failure of the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or decision.[24] A motion for reconsideration must first be filed with the lower court prior to resorting to the extraordinary writ of certiorari since a motion for reconsideration is still considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The rationale for the filing of a motion for reconsideration is to give an opportunity to the lower court to correct its imputed errors.[25]
	GR NO. 147478 2006-07-17	METRO DRUG DISTRIBUTION v. . CORONA, J.
The right to file a special civil action for certiorari is neither a natural right nor a part of due process.[24] The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[25] We will not therefore disturb the Court of Appeals' decision to strictly apply the rules.
	GR NO. 148420 2005-12-15	ANDREA TAN v. BAUSCH CORONA, J.
Needless to state, the acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[18]
	GR NO. 155264 2005-05-06	FLOREN HOTEL v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
We find no merit in private respondents' insistence on procedural flaws. Acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[30] Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the same rules does not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. The Rules only state that such documents, pleadings or records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed resolution, judgment or orders.[31] Here the pieces of evidence, which petitioners alleged had been arbitrarily disregarded, were duly annexed to the petition. Also, the material allegations of the position papers were summarized and discussed extensively in the decision of the Labor Arbiter, a copy of which was also made part of the petition. It does not appear in this case that in deciding to give due course to the petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals committed any error that prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties. There is, therefore, no reason for this Court to disturb the appellate court's determination that the copies of the pleadings and documents attached to the petition were sufficient to make out a prima facie case.
	GR No. 144463 2004-01-14	SENATOR ROBERT S. JAWORSKI v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive influence on the social and moral well being of this nation, specially the youth; hence, their proper and just determination is an imperative need. This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.[6]