This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-03-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[26] The simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed since one remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. The existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal.[27] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The court in which an action is pending may, in the exercise of sound discretion, hold the action in abeyance to abide by the outcome of another case pending in another court.[33] Undeniably, the power to stay proceedings is an incident to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time and effort, and those of counsel and litigants.[34] Every order suspending proceedings must be guided by the following precepts: it shall be done in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and to prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments, confusion between litigants and courts, or when the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled.[35] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Resolutions of the CA which petitioner seeks to nullify are orders of dismissal. In Magestrado v. People,[12] the Court explained that an order of dismissal is a final order which is a proper subject of an appeal, not certiorari. This was reiterated in Pasiona v. Court of Appeals,[13] where it was emphasized that if what is being assailed is a decision, final order or resolution of the CA, then appeal to this Court is via a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In cases where an appeal was available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.[14] The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari, although where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be granted.[15] | |||||
|
2009-02-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari - the remedy that petitioner Vios availed of to question the MTC decision before the RTC - is an original action whose resulting decision is a final order that completely disposes of the petition. The proper remedy from the RTC decision on the petition for certiorari that petitioner Vios filed with that court is an ordinary appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. Particularly instructive on this point is our ruling in Magestrado v. People of the Philippines,[4] thus:The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari. Petitioner claims that he correctly questioned RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Private respondent and public respondent People of the Philippines insist that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy. | |||||