This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-03-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In support of its motion for reconsideration of the Court's Resolution, ALPA-PCM reiterated the above arguments and added that the RTC acted with undue haste in granting the Bulasaos' motion for writ of execution. It alleged that the filing of a motion for execution by the Bulasaos (August 13, 2007) preceded its filing of a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision (August 16, 2007); hence, the motion for execution was premature since the decision sought to be executed was still for further review by the RTC. It cited the Court's ruling in JP Latex Technology, Inc. v. Ballons Granger Balloons, Inc.,[9] which said that "[w]here there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision, an order execution (sic) pending appeal is improper and premature." | |||||
|
2011-08-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| While the general rule is that before certiorari may be availed of, petitioner must have filed a motion for reconsideration of the act or order complained of, the Court has dispensed with this requirement in several instances.[32] Thus, a previous motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for certiorari is necessary unless: (i) the issue raised is one purely of law; (ii) public interest is involved; (iii) there is urgency; (iv) a question of jurisdiction is squarely raised before and decided by the lower court; and (v) the order is a patent nullity.[33] In the instant case, the Court agrees with the CA that there is no need for such motion because the issue regarding the applicability of the rule on intervention raised by IEB in its petition for certiorari filed with the CA, insofar as the June 8, 2005 Order of the RTC is concerned, is one purely of law. | |||||