This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to issue, petitioner must show that he has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against his perceived grievances.[1] Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.[2] Certiorari will lie only to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct errors of judgment. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for review under the same Rule.[3] | |||||
|
2006-04-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a petitioner must show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[25] | |||||
|
2005-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 is clear that the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Under Rule 45, the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration.[20] | |||||
|
2005-02-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The controlling principle in the interpretation of procedural rules is liberality, so that they may promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.[39] When the rules are applied to labor cases, this liberal interpretation must be upheld with even greater vigor.[40] Without in any way depriving the employer of its legal rights, the thrust of statutes and rules governing labor cases has been to benefit workers and avoid subjecting them to great delays and hardships. This intent holds especially in this case, in which the plaintiffs are poor laborers. | |||||