Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEW YORK MARINE MANAGERS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 157449 2010-04-06	NEMESIO GOCO v. CA BRION, J.
As the petitioners now raise before this Court the same errors of judgment already raised before and resolved by the CA, the dismissal of the present certiorari petition is in order for being the wrong remedy. Errors of judgment committed by the CA are reviewable by this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Erroneous findings and conclusion do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari.[20]
	GR NO. 156660 2009-08-24	ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari. For where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they would, at most constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari.[9]
	GR NO. 165403 2006-02-27	INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, there is no reason why the question being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition, could not have been raised on appeal.[12] Mere errors of judgment cannot be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari.[13] Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[14] Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari, for where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they would, at the most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.[15]
	GR NO. 165403 2006-02-27	INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, there is no reason why the question being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition, could not have been raised on appeal.[12] Mere errors of judgment cannot be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari.[13] Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[14] Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari, for where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they would, at the most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.[15]