This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-30 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Sunrise Garden Corporation posits that a third-party claim would have been the proper remedy for respondent First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc., and not a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.[217] Petitioner Sunrise Garden Corporation cited Ciudad Real & Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[218] where this court allegedly ruled that it is grave abuse of discretion to allow a "petitioner who is not a party litigant in the proceedings below [to file a petition] for certiorari."[219] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner invokes the case of Ciudad Real & Dev't. Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[22] In Ciudad Real, it was ruled that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it upheld the standing of Magdiwang Realty Corporation as a party to the petition for certiorari, even though it was not a party-in-interest in the civil case before the lower court. | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Ciudad Real v. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court ruled that there is grave abuse of discretion if the appellate court recognizes the standing of a party, not a litigant in the trial court proceedings, to join a petition for certiorari. The Court explained:Worse was the ruling of the respondent appellate court sanctioning the standing of Magdiwang Realty Corporation to join said petition for certiorari. As the records show, Magdiwang filed a Motion for Intervention on July 18, 1989 invoking its alleged Memorandum of Agreement with Doña Juana Development Corporation dated July 15, 1982. The trial court, however, denied this motion and Magdiwang did not question the ruling in the appellate court. The ruling thus, became final. After about two (2) years or on August 27, 1991, Magdiwang again filed a Motion to Substitute and/or Join as Party/Plaintiff relying on the same Memorandum of Agreement. The trial court similarly denied the motion, and the denial also attained finality as Magdiwang did not further challenge its correctness. Despite the finality of the order denying Magdiwang's intervention way back in 1989, the respondent court in its Decision of August 20, 1992 recognized the standing of Magdiwang to assail in the appellate court the Compromise Agreement. Again, this ruling constitutes grave abuse of discretion for Magdiwang was not a party in interest in Civil Case No. Q-35393. The wisdom of this ruling is all too apparent. If a person not a party to an action is allowed to file a certiorari petition assailing an interlocutory order of the trial court, such as an injunctive order and writ, proceedings will become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. Eventually, this will defeat the policy of our remedial laws to secure party-litigants a speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action. | |||||