Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KOREA EXCHANGE BANK v. FILKOR BUSINESS INTEGRATED

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 207376 2014-08-06	AIDA PADILLA v. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
There is no dispute with respect to the fact that when an appeal raises only pure questions of law, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the same.[29] Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides: SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
	GR No. 167732 2012-07-11	TEAM PACIFIC CORPORATION v. JOSEPHINE DAZA IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TAGUIG PEREZ, J.
Even if, in the interest of substantial justice, we were to consider its petition for certiorari as an appeal from Daza's denial of its protest, TPC's availment of the wrong mode of appeal from the RTC's assailed 5 April 2005 Order has, moreover, clearly rendered the same final and executory. Granted that a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari is the proper mode of appeal when the issues raised are purely questions of law,[23] TPC lost sight of the fact that, as amended by RA No. 9282,[24] paragraph c (2) [a], Section 7[25] of RA No. 1125[26] has vested the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) with the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over, among others, appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction. As amended by Section 9 of RA No. 9282,[27] Section 11 of RA No. 1125 likewise requires that the appeal be perfected within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision and shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
	GR NO. 137549 2005-02-11	AURELIO P. ALONZO v. JAIME CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is at once apparent that the determination of the correctness of the trial court's interpretation of the provisions of the Compromise Agreement involves a question of law.[19] However, the claim of payments raised by the respondents entails a review of the evidences on record which is not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45. Be that as it may, the Court in the exercise of its discretion, may set aside procedural rules and proceed to determine and resolve factual matters[20] to put all issues to rest and avoid further delay. With this, we deem it necessary to first settle the issue of payment.