Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MS. EMILY YU FAJARDO v. ODILON I. BAUTISTA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165338 2011-11-28	MAKILITO B. MAHINAY v. IRENEO LEE GAKO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In G.R. No. 179375, Sorensen on the other hand seeks to reverse and set aside the April 24, 2007 Resolution[6] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed her Petition for Certiorari[7] in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02193. Sorensen filed said certiorari petition after Judge Gako volte faced and issued an Order[8] dated September 1, 2006 ordering her to surrender to Mahinay TCT No. 117531.
	GR NO. 148072 2007-07-10	FRANCISCO MAGESTRADO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[23] A party cannot substitute the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the remedy of appeal. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari.[24] As this Court held in Fajardo v. Bautista[25]:Generally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and hence a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly, although the special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. On 21 December 2000, petitioner received a copy of the Order of the RTC-Branch 83 denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358; hence, he had until 18 January 2001 within which to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner on 19 February 2001 with the Court of Appeals cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. As petitioner failed to file a timely appeal, RTC-Branch 83's dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari had long become final and executory.
	GR NO. 126236 2007-01-26	DOMINGO REALTY v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
April 4, 1994 Acero filed with the CA a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 33407 entitled Antonio M. Acero v. Domingo Realty, Inc., et al. In his undated Manifestation, respondent Acero admitted having received a copy of the December 7, 1987 Decision on December 11, 1987. However, it was only on February 2, 1988 when he filed a Motion to Nullify the Compromise Agreement which was discarded for lack of merit by the trial court on December 6, 1991. If the Motion to Nullify the Compromise Agreement is treated as a motion for reconsideration and/or for new trial, then Acero should have filed an appeal from the December 7, 1987 Decision and assigned as error the December 6, 1991 Order denying said motion pursuant to the rules existing prior to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He failed to file such appeal but instead filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA on April 4, 1994. This is prejudicial to respondent Acero as the special civil action of certiorari is not the proper remedy. If the aggrieved party does not interpose a timely appeal from the adverse decision, a special civil action for certiorari is not available as a substitute for a lost appeal.[43]
	GR No. 150241 2004-11-04	EDUARDO S. MERCADO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner should have availed of the ordinary appeal process such as a petition for review under Rule 45, within 15 days after notice of denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. Undoubtedly, petitioner had already lost this remedy when he filed this special civil action on January 16, 2001. A Petition for Certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[11] By his own account, petitioner received the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration from the RTC on November 17, 2000. Instead of filing a petition for review with the appellate court within 15 days thereof or until December 2, 2000, he filed a petition for certiorari by registered mail on January 16, 2001, but belatedly made the payment of docket fees only on January 17, 2001. Noteworthy, petitioner did not even attempt to explain why he was unable to file a petition for review within the reglementary period.
	GR No. 144230 2003-09-30	ARTURO G. MACKY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES QUISUMBING, J.
As to the third ground for the petition, suffice it to say that the rule is well-settled that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only errors of law may be raised.[20] The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[21] Certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 should be distinguished from certiorari as an original action under Rule 65. In an appeal by certiorari, the petition is based on questions of law which the appellant desires the appellate court to resolve. In certiorari as an original action, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[22] An allegation of grave abuse of discretion like the one made by the petitioner here, being beyond the scope of appeals by certiorari, deserves scant consideration.