This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.) From the words of Rule 45, it is crystal that decisions (judgments), final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[36] | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| There is no excuse for petitioners' erroneous choice of remedy. In Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo v. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court ruled in no uncertain terms that redress from the CA's adverse decision in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 should not be sought under the same Rule but rather under Rule 45.[19] After all, Rule 45 is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[20] And in an even earlier case,[21] this Court stated that the remedy to obtain a reversal or modification of a decision on the merits, as petitioners are attempting to do here, is appeal.[22] This is true even if the error ascribed to the appellate court is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in its decision.[23] Therefore, petitioners' allegation that the CA "committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction"[24] in rendering its decision and resolution "in a manner contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence on the matter"[25] does nothing to advance their cause. | |||||