Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NG SOON v. ALOYSIUS ALDAY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169345 2010-08-25	DEE PING WEE v. LEE HIONG WEE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[29] of the Resolution dated September 2, 2004, but the same was denied in a Resolution[30] dated November 17, 2004.
	GR No. 169345 2010-08-25	DEE PING WEE v. LEE HIONG WEE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration[38] of the above Decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution[39] dated May 19, 2006. Subsequently, the Decision dated April 28, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 85879 became final and executory on June 27, 2006.[40]
	GR No. 169345 2010-08-25	DEE PING WEE v. LEE HIONG WEE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration[38] of the above Decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution[39] dated May 19, 2006. Subsequently, the Decision dated April 28, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 85879 became final and executory on June 27, 2006.[40]
	GR No. 169345 2010-08-25	DEE PING WEE v. LEE HIONG WEE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The petitioners' erroneous choice of remedy was further aggravated by the fact that the same was apparently resorted to after they lost the remedy of appeal. In their petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, petitioners pointedly stated that "while it may be true that appeal was an available remedy, the same is not adequate or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient."[63] This is plainly inaccurate. As previously discussed, petitioners received the RTC Decisions in Civil Case Nos. Q-04-091, Q-04-092 and Q-04-093 on July 7, 2004. From then on, petitioners filed the three separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on August 23, 2004, or forty-seven (47) days after receipt of the RTC Decisions. In Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong,[64] we reiterated the basic remedial law principle that: While the special civil action of certiorari may be availed of in the alternative situation where an appeal would not constitute a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, this is on the theoretical assumption that the right to appeal is still available in the case. If, however, the remedy by appeal had already been lost and the loss was occasioned by petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies, certiorari cannot lie as a substitute or a tool to shield the petitioner from the adverse consequences of such neglect or error. The two remedies are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.