Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VMC RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 205278 2014-06-11	PHILIPPINE SPRING WATER RESOURCES INC. v. CA MENDOZA, J.
There is a patent error in the mode of appeal selected by the petitioners. It is well-settled that in assailing a decision of the CA, the available remedy is to file a petition for review under Rule 45 and not the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65. The proper remedy is to file a petition for review on certiorari under the Rules of Court which should be instituted within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision or resolution. In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently emphasized that after the lapse of the 15-day period to file a petition for review on certiorari, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not, and cannot be, a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. [10]
	GR Nos. 167583-84 2010-06-16	ARTISTICA CERAMICA v. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefore is grave abuse of discretion.[18] Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.[19] Pertinent, therefore, to a resolution of the case at bar is a determination of whether or not an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy was still available to petitioners, the absence of which would warrant petitioners' decision to seek refuge under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
	GR No. 185001 2009-09-25	RONNIE H. LUMAYNA v. COA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In this case, the assailed Decisions of the COA clearly presented the factual findings and adequately explained the legal basis for disallowing the said amount. Indeed, as computed by Ms. Virginia Farro, the Provincial Budget Officer of Ifugao, the annual budget of Mayoyao for 2002 exceeded the limit for personal services as prescribed in Section 325(a) of the LGC by P3,944,568.05. Further, it was established that the grant of the increase through the adoption of higher salary class schedule is not among the list of items and activities whereby the limitation for personal services may be waived pursuant to LBC No. 75. Finally, the municipality adopted the salary rates under LBC No. 69 and not the salary rates under LBC No. 74. No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can thus be attributed to respondent COA. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law -- mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[32]
	GR No. 163788 2009-08-24	ESTER B. MARALIT v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK CARPIO, J.
The Court is unimpressed. In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court of Appeals has ample authority to receive new evidence and perform any act necessary to resolve factual issues. Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, states that, "The Court of Appeals shall have the power totry cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issuesraised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings." In VMC Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court held: [I]t is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals -- pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari -- is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues. As clearly stated in Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act 7902:
	GR No. 177961 2009-04-07	LOURDES A. SABLE v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been held that the proper remedy of the party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not identical with a petition for review under Rule 65. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45.[26] One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.[27] Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, as in this case, his petition may be dismissed outright.[28]
	GR No. 167938 2009-02-19	HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, a perusal of the issues raised by petitioners, although alleging grave abuse of discretion, are clearly for the correction of errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction.[23] If indeed errors of facts and erroneous appreciation of facts had been committed by the appellate court, still these would not amount to grave abuse of discretion. Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render the decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[24]
	GR No. 131903 2008-06-26	RAGASA v. CA CARPIO, J.
There were instances when the Court has relaxed the rule on the special civil action for certiorari as a substitute for failure to file a timely petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 such as where the application of this rule would result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice.[36] Although the Court has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, there is nothing in the present case to warrant a liberal application of the rules.