You're currently signed in as:
User

MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2014-04-02
PEREZ, J.
Petitioner was correct when she filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45. However, instead of raising errors of judgment as a proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45, the petition formulated jurisdictional errors purportedly committed by the court a quo, i.e., whether or not the court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion,[22] which is the proper subject of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Noticeably, the petition does not allege any bias, partiality or bad faith by the court a quo in its proceedings;[23] and the petition does not raise a denial of due process in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.[24]