This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-12-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In determining the appropriate remedy or remedies available, a party aggrieved by a court order, resolution or decision must first correctly identify the nature of the order, resolution or decision he intends to assail.[51] In this case, we must preliminarily determine whether the 1998 resolution is "final" or "interlocutory" in nature. | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner is correct when he asserts that a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the Orders of the BOM, admitting in evidence the exhibits of Editha. As the assailed Orders were interlocutory, these cannot be the subject of an appeal separate from the judgment that completely or finally disposes of the case.[5] At that stage, where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the only and remaining remedy left to petitioner is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. | |||||