Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DR. NORBERT L. ALFONSO v. JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180962 2014-02-26	PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES v. PHILTRANCO WORKERS UNION-ASSOCIATION OF GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The CA held that, in assailing the Decision of the DOLE voluntary arbitrator, petitioner erred in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules, when it should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 thereof, which properly covers decisions of voluntary labor arbitrators.[12] For this reason, the petition is dismissible pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90.[13] The CA added that since the assailed Decision was not timely appealed within the reglementary 15-day period under Rule 43, the same became final and executory. Finally, the appellate court ruled that even assuming for the sake of argument that certiorari was indeed the correct remedy, still the petition should be dismissed for being filed out of time. Petitioner's unauthorized Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Secretary of Labor did not toll the running of the reglementary 60-day period within which to avail of certiorari; thus, from the time of its receipt of Acting Labor Secretary Cruz's June 13, 2007 Decision on June 14 or the following day, petitioner had until August 13 to file the petition yet it filed the same only on August 29.
	GR No. 146175 2008-06-30	SIMEON M. VALDEZ v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is an elementary principle that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used if the proper remedy is appeal. Being an extraordinary remedy, a party can only avail himself of certiorari, if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[13] Here, appeal is the correct mode but was not seasonably utilized by the petitioner. Resort to this petition for certiorari is, therefore, improper because certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.[14] Petitions for certiorari are limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its competence such as errors of judgment. For, it is basic that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[15] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. It is not to be used for any other purpose, such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact, as what petitioner would like the Court to venture into. A petition for certiorari not being the proper remedy to correct errors of judgment as alleged in the instant case, the herein petition should be dismissed pursuant to SC Circular No. 2-90.[16]
	GR No. 132467 2004-10-18	SOCORRO CHUA v. ROMUALDO SANTOS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Every lawyer[19] should be familiar with the obvious distinctions between a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. For one, that under Rule 45 is a continuation of the judgment complained of, while that under Rule 65 is an original or independent. It is, likewise, settled that generally, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 will not be allowed as a substitute for failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule 45 or for the lost remedy of appeal.[20]
	GR No. 143604 2003-06-20	PRISCO LANZADERAS v. AMETHYST SECURITY QUISUMBING, J.
In Tuazon, we ruled that the allegation "lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy" in the petition filed with the Court of Appeals to be mere surplusage. Thus, it could not detract from a consideration of the petition as one for review under Section 22[28] of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Section 22 (b) of the Interim Rules and Circular 2-90.[29] The petition filed in Tuazon complied with the requirements of a petition for review, albeit captioned as one for certiorari, but with the cited surplusage. Tuazon clearly shows the Court looks beyond the form and considers substance as circumstances warrant.
	GR No. 120650 2003-02-21	RENE BOTONA v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Solicitor General asserts that petitioner resorted to the wrong mode of appeal; that the special civil action under Rule 65 is inappropriate because herein petition seeks to review errors of judgment and not of jurisdiction; that petitioner could not resort to Certiorari under Rule 65 when there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which is by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; that the instant petition was filed beyond the fifteen (15) day period to appeal from the order of denial, evincing that this petition was resorted to as a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal;[11] that therefore the instant petition should be outrightly dismissed under SC Circular No. 2-90, to wit:`SC Circular 2-90 provides :
	GR No. 141116 2003-02-17	DAMASO SEBASTIAN v. HORACIO R. MORALES QUISUMBING, J.
Section 61 of R.A. No. 6657[22] clearly mandates that judicial review of DAR orders or decisions are governed by the Rules of Court. The Rules direct that it is Rule 43 that governs the procedure for judicial review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the DAR Secretary. By pursuing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than the mandatory petition for review under Rule 43, petitioners opted for the wrong mode of appeal. Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90,[23] "an appeal taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed." Therefore, we hold that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 for failure of petitioners to pursue the proper mode of appeal.
	GR No. 139288 2000-02-28	LEONIDA S. ROMERO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VITUG, J.
At all events, justifications could exist to warrant a liberal application of the rules. In one case,[7] petitioner therein, a public school teacher, was meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension by the Civil Service Commission for allegedly participating in the mass action/illegal strike of teachers. Unsatisfied, said petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Court of Appeals which petition, however, was outrightly dismissed for being an inappropriate remedy or wrong mode of appeal pursuant to then Circular No. 2-90; viz:"(4) Erroneous Appeals - An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed."