Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191641 2015-09-02	EDMUNDO NAVAREZ v. ATTY. MANUEL ABROGAR III BRION, J.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of liberality that pervades the Rules of Court[4] and in the interest of substantial justice,[5] this Court has, on appropriate occasions, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly when: (1) the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period to file a petition for review on certiorari;[6] (2) the petition avers errors of judgment;[7] and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[8] Considering that the present petition was filed within the extension period granted by this Court and avers errors of law and judgment, this Court deems it proper to treat the present petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari in order to serve the higher ends of justice.
	GR No. 152101 2009-09-08	EMCOR INCORPORATED v. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES PERALTA, J.
However, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, we have the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.[11] Petitioner received the CA resolution denying its motion for reconsideration on January 24, 2002, and it filed the petition for certiorari on February 7, 2002; thus, the petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a petition for review.
	GR No. 170447 2009-06-23	BIENVENIDO DIÑO v. PABLO OLIVAREZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, it should be noted that the appropriate remedy for petitioners is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as petitioners aver in their Manifestation and Motion dated 9 January 2006. However, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, this Court has decided to treat the present petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially considering that it was filed within the reglementary period for the same. Petitioners received the Court of Appeals' Resolution on 24 November 2005 and filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal on 6 December 2005, within the 15-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review on certiorari. This Court granted the motion of petitioners for an extension of 30 days from 9 December 2005, the expiration of the reglementary period, and the petitioners were able to file their petition on 6 January 2006 within the period for extension granted by this Court. It cannot therefore be claimed that this petition is being used as a substitute for appeal after the remedy has been lost through the fault of the petitioner.[25]
	GR NO. 155208 2007-03-27	NENA LAZALITA TATING v. FELICIDAD MARCELLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court notes that while the instant petition is denominated as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, there is no allegation that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. On the other hand, the petition actually avers errors of judgment, rather than of jurisdiction, which are the proper subjects of a petition for review on certiorari. Hence, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, the Court decided to treat the present petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially considering that it was filed within the reglementary period for filing the same.[17]
	GR No. 136114 2004-01-22	LANDBANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AGENCY INCORPORATED SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.[12] In this case, however, we find no reason to justify a liberal application of the Rules.
	GR No. 152776 2003-10-08	HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO PANGANIBAN, J.
Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review;[24] (2) errors of judgment are averred;[25] and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[26] Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought.[27] The Court explained:"x x x. It cannot x x x be claimed that this petition is being used as a substitute for appeal after that remedy has been lost through the fault of petitioner. Moreover, stripped of allegations of `grave abuse of discretion,' the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction, which are the subject of a petition for review."[28]