This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[16] we summarized the rule on appeals as follows[17]: (1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal where the appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law; | |||||
|
2009-10-09 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On a procedural matter, the Court notes that petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without filing a motion for reconsideration with the CA. It is settled that the writ of certiorari lies only when petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, a motion for reconsideration, as a general rule, must be filed before the tribunal, board, or officer against whom the writ of certiorari is sought. Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.[22] This rule, however, is not without exceptions. In National Housing v. Court of Appeals,[23] we held: However, in Progressive Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held that while generally a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to certiorari in order to give the lower court an opportunity to rectify its errors, this rule admits of exceptions and is not intended to be applied without considering the circumstances of the case. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is not a condition sine qua non when the issue raised is purely one of law, or where the error is patent or the disputed order is void, or the questions raised on certiorari are the same as those already squarely presented to and passed upon by the lower court.[24] (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
|||||
| In the present case, it is undisputed that under the NLRC rules, no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to dismiss. The NLRC rule proscribing appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss is similar to the general rule observed in civil procedure that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and, hence, not appealable until final judgment or order is rendered.[16] The remedy of the aggrieved party in case of denial of the motion to dismiss is to file an answer and interpose, as a defense or defenses, the ground or grounds relied upon in the motion to dismiss, proceed to trial and, in case of adverse judgment, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course.[17] In order to avail of the extraordinary writ of certiorari, it is incumbent upon petitioner to establish that the denial of the motion to dismiss was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.[18] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Decisions of the regional trial courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction are appealable to the Court of Appeals by petition for review in cases involving questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law.[14] Decisions of the regional trial courts involving pure questions of law are appealable directly to this Court by petition for review.[15] These modes of appeal are now embodied in Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. | |||||
|
2001-07-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Citing Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10] petitioners maintain that a motion for reconsideration is not a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari if the question raised before the appellate court has been raised in and passed upon by the court below. | |||||