Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 161645 2004-07-30	SPS. ANTONIO AND BELINDA GATCHALIAN v. CA SIXTH DIVISION TINGA, J,
Petitioners pursued the wrong mode of appeal in filing this Petition for Certiorari. As they are questioning a decision of the Court of Appeals which finally disposed of their Petition for Injunction, they should have filed a petition for review and not a petition for certiorari. We have time and again stated that certiorari is not available where the proper remedy is an appeal in due course.[24] In this case, such remedy has lapsed for the failure of petitioners to take the appeal within the reglementary period.
	GR No. 159118 2004-06-28	VICTOR B. CUÑADA v. RAY ALAN T. DRILON AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC TINGA, J.
The Petition for Certiorari was dismissed for being a wrong remedy. Petitioners should have appealed the decision of the trial court before the Court of Appeals, since the assailed decision constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties. Section 1 of Rule 65 explicitly lays down the rule that a special civil action for certiorari is proper only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is not available where the proper remedy is an appeal in due course.[5] There is no reason for the Court to depart from the foregoing principle and sanction petitioners' wrong choice.