Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARAWI MARANTAO GENERAL HOSPITAL v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168726 2010-03-05	PIO DELOS REYES v. WALDO Q. FLORES CARPIO, J.
We have held in a litany of cases that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus are available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration. The writ of certiorari does not lie where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error.[19] Likewise, mandamus is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford redress because generally, a writ of mandamus will not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.[20] However, there are several exceptions where a petition for certiorari will lie without the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration, to wit: a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR No. 171137 2009-06-05	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. SPS. WILSON DY HONG PI AND LOLITA DY AND SPS. PRIMO CHUYACO PUNO, J.
where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[45] Otherwise stated, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with only if there are concrete, compelling, and valid reasons for doing so.[46]
	GR NO. 167131 2006-09-12	SPS. NAPOLEON FLORES v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY CALLEJO, SR., J.
After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, the judgment or final order becomes final and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or reverse.[28] The court loses jurisdiction over the case except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.[29]
	GR No. 147410 2004-02-05	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. ASSET BUILDERS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
As aptly held by the appellate court, respondent's acts subsequent to the expiration of the bid bond did not constitute a waiver of Section 9 of the Instruction to Bidders. To be valid and effective, waivers must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms, leaving no doubt as to the intention of those giving up a right or a benefit that legally pertains to them.[79] Respondent, contrary to the claim of petitioner, despite its repeated requests, never received a copy of the Notice of Award. Indeed, the former never adopted an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that caused loss or injury to the latter.[80] The attendance of respondent in the pre-construction conference and the ground-breaking ceremony was part of the negotiation process. Thus, petitioner's claim of estoppel against it could not be applied.
	GR No. 143823 2001-03-06	JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46." Generally, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent tribunal to allow it an opportunity to correct its imputed errors.[13] However, the following have been recognized as exceptions to the rule: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[14] (emphasis supplied) We hold that the second and fourth exceptions are clearly in point.