This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has 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.[21] In this case, petitioner had the remedy of appeal, and it was the speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, a special civil action for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal that the petitioner has already lost. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lost appeal.[22] Certiorari will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[23] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Besides, it is a hornbook doctrine that mere errors of judgment cannot be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari.[15] International Exchange Bank v. Court of Appeals[16] stressed this rule as follows:"x x x Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari, for where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they would, at the most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari."[17] (Emphasis supplied) Furthermore, petitions under Rule 65 must be filed within 60 days. In the present case, the Petition was filed after over a year. | |||||