This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioner filed her separate opposition to the respondent's motion for pre-trial and a motion to hold proceedings in abeyance, stating that after the dismissal of G.R. No. 127611, two other similar petitions have been elevated to this Court: (1) G.R. No. 130184,[30] involving the CA's reversal of the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-95-24830 in the Quezon City RTC (Branch 91), and (2) G.R. No. 132703.[31] | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In her compliance,[34] the petitioner summarized this Court's rulings in the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 130184 and 139166,[35] and in G.R. No. 132703,[36] and reported on the other cases involving the same parties decided by this Court, such as G.R. Nos. 129887,[37] 137980,[38] 132051,[39] 137533,[40] 143263,[41] and 142672,[42] as well as the other related cases decided by this Court, i.e., G.R. Nos. 144700,[43] 147997,[44] 167255,[45] and 144705.[46] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari is proper if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[10] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is an elementary rule of procedure that "perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional so that failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, and deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal."[13] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
BELLOSILLO , J. |
||||
| "fn">[8] The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law.[9] There is grave abuse of discretion when respondent acts in a capricious or whimsical manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[10] Petitioner asserts that respondent trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying its application for the issuance of an ex parte order. However, other than this bare allegation, petitioner failed to point out specific instances where grave abuse of discretion | |||||