Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 178645 2009-01-30	LINA PEÑALBER v. QUIRINO RAMOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 24 July 2000, respondent spouses Ramos elevated their case to the Court of Appeals, insofar as the ruling of the RTC on petitioner's second cause of action was concerned.[20] The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69731.
	GR No. 178645 2009-01-30	LINA PEÑALBER v. QUIRINO RAMOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 24 July 2000, respondent spouses Ramos elevated their case to the Court of Appeals, insofar as the ruling of the RTC on petitioner's second cause of action was concerned.[20] The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69731.
	GR No. 150276 2008-02-12	CECILIA B. ESTINOZO v. CA NACHURA, J.
Even granting arguendo that the instant certiorari petition is an appropriate remedy, still this Court cannot grant the writ prayed for because we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA in the challenged issuances. The rule, as it stands now without exception, is that the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot be extended, except in cases before this Court, as one of last resort, which may, in its sound discretion grant the extension requested.[39] This rule also applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended.[40] Thus, the appellate court correctly denied petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration.