Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180492 2009-03-13	ELPIDIO B. VALINO v. ALVIN P. VERGARA NACHURA, J.
Based on the foregoing disquisitions, Resolution No. 8212, with respect to petitioner, had already become final and executory and, therefore, beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[29]
	GR No. 162739 2008-02-12	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-SANTIAGO CITY v. CHELLY P. NACINO NACHURA, J.
While it is true that, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, a petition for certiorari may be treated as having been filed under Rule 45, the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before the CA cannot be treated as such, without the exceptional circumstances mentioned above, because it was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review.[22] AMA received the assailed Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator on April 15, 2003 and it filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA only on June 16, 2003.[23] By parity of reasoning, the same reglementary period should apply to appeals taken from the decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators under Rule 43. Based on the foregoing disquisitions, the assailed Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator had already become final and executory and beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[24]
	GR No. 170244 2007-11-28	ILOILO LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Moreover, while it is true that this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, may treat a Petition for Certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, the instant Petition cannot be treated as such, primarily because it was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review[25] and even beyond the extended period of thirty (30) days granted to petitioner by this Court, without the attending instances aforementioned. Based on the foregoing disquisitions, the assailed decision of the CA had already become final and executory and beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[26]
	GR NO. 165910 2006-04-10	HANJIN ENGINEERING v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioners had until November 4, 2004 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari on pure questions of law. However, as already stated, petitioners filed their petition in this Court only on November 23, 2004;[23] indubitably, the decision of the CA had by then already become final and executory, beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[24]