Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PIO DELOS REYES v. WALDO Q. FLORES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
A motion for reconsideration allows the public respondent an opportunity to correct its factual and legal errors. Sen. Estrada, however, failed to present a compelling reason that the present Petition falls under the exceptions[41] to the general rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari. This Court has reiterated in numerous decisions that a motion for reconsideration is mandatory before the filing of a petition for certiorari.[42]
	GR No. 206599 2014-09-29	680 HOME APPLIANCES v. CA BRION, J.
A motion for reconsideration is recognized as an adequate remedy against a decision, resolution, or order of a lower court, as it provides the court opportunity to correct any error it might have committed.[9] Hence, the filing of a motion for reconsideration was made a pre-requisite to the filing of a certiorari petition. The availability of the remedy of reconsideration generally precludes immediate recourse to a certiorari petition.[10] 680 Home, however, never moved for the reconsideration of the CA decision, and offered no explanation for its failure to comply with the requirement.
	GR No. 194104 2013-03-13	NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK MENDOZA, J.
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[22]
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
Failure to comply with the 120-day waiting period violates a mandatory provision of law. It violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and renders the petition premature and thus without a cause of action, with the effect that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over the taxpayer's petition. Philippine jurisprudence is replete with cases upholding and reiterating these doctrinal principles.[46]
	GR No. 193161 2011-08-22	DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS v. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO VELASCO JR., J.
As properly noted by petitioner, the general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is required before a decision may be appealed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Under the rule, there must be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration, to justify the filing of a petition for certiorari. Thus, petitioner argues that respondent's failure to move for the reconsideration of the Order dated November 4, 2002 is fatal to an appeal from it. Such general rule, however, admits of exceptions as explained in Delos Reyes v. Flores:[22]