Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAMASO SEBASTIAN v. HORACIO R. MORALES

This case has been cited 21 times or more.

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
However, suspending the application of the Rules has its disadvantages. Relaxing procedural rules may reduce the "effective enforcement of substantive rights,"[203] leading to "arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes."[204] Therefore, for this court to suspend the application of the Rules, the accomplishment of substantial justice must outweigh the importance of predictability of court procedures.
	GR No. 167732 2012-07-11	TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION v. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG PEREZ, J.
Gauged from the foregoing definitions, Daza cannot be said to be performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function in assessing TPC's business tax and/or effectively denying its protest as then Municipal Treasurer of Taguig. For this reason, Daza's actions are not the proper subjects of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which is the appropriate remedy in cases where a the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law.[19] Narrow in scope and inflexible in character,[20] certiorari is an extraordinary remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[21] It is likewise considered mutually exclusive with appeal[22] like the one provided by Article 195 of the Local Government Code for a local treasurer's denial of or inaction on a protest.
	GR No. 178110 2011-06-15	AYALA LAND v. SIMEONA CASTILLO SERENO, J.
[30] Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 609 (2003).
	GR Nos. 167583-84 2010-06-16	ARTISTICA CERAMICA v. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
While petitioners would insist that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, this Court is of the opinion, however, that the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, granting the forfeiture of the performance bond among others, amount to nothing more than errors of judgment, correctible by appeal. When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.[21] If every error committed by the trial court or quasi-judicial agency were to be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari, then trial would never end and the dockets of appellate courts would be clogged beyond measure. For this reason, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[22] Since petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari, instead of appeal via a petition for review, the petition should be dismissed.
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Sebastian v. Morales,[102] the Court provided the following elucidation on the proper remedy from an order of the DAR Secretary and the consequence for availing one's self of the wrong mode of appeal: We agree with the appellate court that petitioners' reliance on Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657 "is not merely a mistake in the designation of the mode of appeal, but clearly an erroneous appeal from the assailed Orders." For in relying solely on Section 54, petitioners patently ignored or conveniently overlooked Section 60 of R.A. No. 6657, the pertinent portion of which provides that:
	GR NO. 174830 2009-07-31	ISABELITA VDA. DE DAYAO v. HEIRS OF GAVINO ROBLES QUISUMBING, J.
Settled is the rule that factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari, as a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. Moreover, it is settled doctrine that the "errors" which may be reviewed by this Court in a petition for certiorari are those of the Court of Appeals, and not directly those of the trial court or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which rendered the decision in the first instance. Finally, it is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. The factual findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[16]
	GR No. 161910 2008-06-17	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MA. REGINA I. SAMSON YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As to whether the subject properties are exempt from CARP coverage, the Court of Appeals did not make any findings inasmuch as it limited its discussion in resolving the procedural issues raised before it. Considering that these issues involve an evaluation of the DAR's findings of facts, this Court is constrained to accord respect to such findings. It is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. The factual findings of the Secretary of DAR who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[33]
	GR No. 169332 2008-02-11	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS JAPAN CO. CORONA, J.
Time and again, we have ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[20]
	GR NO. 170823 2007-03-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. OROVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORP. TINGA, J.
We cannot simply brush aside the DAR's pronouncements regarding the status of the subject property as not exempt from CARP coverage considering that the DAR has unquestionable technical expertise on these matters.[13] Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, a situation that obtains in this case. The factual findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[14] More so, because the DAR's findings have gone up the ladder of administrative process and have been affirmed by the Office of the President.
	GR NO. 169420 2006-09-22	ATTY. ERLANDO A. ABRENICA v. LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As held in Sebastian v. Morales:[24]
	GR NO. 159210 2006-09-20	MOCARAL MACAWIAG v. JUDGE RASAD BALINDONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, when a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.[37]
	GR NO. 130260 2006-02-06	HILARIA RAMOS VDA. DE BRIGINO v. DOMINADOR RAMOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The above findings of the DARAB are entitled to great weight, nay, finality considering that the findings of the Boards are unquestionably factual issues that have been discussed and ruled upon by them and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We cannot depart from such findings. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[19] Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[20]
	GR NO. 162805 2006-01-23	ROMEO E. CABALITAN v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM QUISUMBING, J.
Time and again, we have said that a petition under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. We could not entertain factual questions already submitted to and ruled upon by the trial courts. Moreover, in a petition for certiorari, normally we review only those committed by the Court of Appeals, and not directly those of the trial court or a quasi-judicial agency, tribunal or officer which rendered the decision in the first instance.[10]
	GR NO. 155738 2005-08-09	ANGEL PAGTALUNAN v. RICARDO MANLAPIG AZCUNA, J.
Furthermore, the issues involved are factual in nature, namely, whether or not there was substantial evidence that Angel Pagtalunan failed to pay the lease rentals.[5] It is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect by the courts.[6] This Court, in any event, is not the proper forum for resolving such factual issues.
	GR NO. 141255 2005-06-21	LUCIANO ELLO v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Sebastian vs. Morales,[16] we ruled that "rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure," which exception is present here.
	GR NO. 152336 2005-06-09	MTM GARMENT MFG. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
True, the Court of Appeals relied on technical grounds in denying the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners. Equally true, Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[16] provides that said rules should be construed liberally to effect substantial justice. All these do not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely: to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.[17]
	GR No. 159962 2004-12-16	MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nor can we appreciate the petitioners' argument that the Secretary of Justice can "impliedly suspend"[55] the DOJ's rules of procedure at anytime. Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.[56] Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain its failure to comply with the rules.[57] Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcement of procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantive rights of the litigants.[58] The policy of the courts is to give effect to both procedural and substantive laws, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.[59]
	GR No. 151439 2004-06-21	MARINO E. RUBIA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM QUISUMBING, J.
Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, that is, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the substantive rights of parties.[25]
	GR No. 147205 2004-03-10	HEIRS OF LOURDES POTENCIANO PADILLA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
The availability to respondent of the remedy of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to appeal the Decision and Resolution of the Office of the President effectively foreclosed his right to resort to a special civil action for certiorari.[10] It bears emphasis that the special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. The Court has often reminded members of the bench and bar that this extraordinary action lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[11] It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. To reiterate, a petition for review is a mode of appeal, while a special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary process for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. The two remedies are distinct, mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[12]
	GR No. 149465 2003-12-08	DARIA GONZALES VDA. DE TOLEDO v. ANTONIO TOLEDO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
At the outset, we noted that for failure to submit proof of service,[16] petitioner's motion for extension of thirty (30) days from August 15, 2001 within which to file the petition was denied. Thus, when petitioner filed the instant petition on September 13, 2001, it was filed out of time. This procedural lapse on the part of petitioner would have warranted the outright dismissal of the petition. However, in Sebastian and Cardenas v. Morales, et al.,[17] we held:Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal construction of the Rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. This does not mean, however that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsically in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.