This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-08-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The instant recourse is improper because the resolution of the CA was a final order from which the remedy of appeal was available under Rule 45 in relation to Rule 56. 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. It is elementary that for certiorari to prosper, it is not enough that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the requirement that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law must likewise be satisfied.[8] The proper mode of recourse for petitioners was to file a petition for review of the CA's decision under Rule 45. | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. In Manacop v. Equitable Banking Corporation,[34] we held that discretionary execution of appealed judgments may be allowed upon concurrence of the following requisites: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (b) there must be a good reason for execution pending appeal; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order.[35] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| First, it is well settled that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of judgment on the merits is appeal.[8] This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of facts or of law set out in the decision.[9] In the present case, the CA disposed of CA-G.R. SP No. 52373 on the merits. Petitioner claims that he received the Decision of the CA on May 17, 2001. Consequently, he had 15 days from said date of receipt of assailed judgment, or until June 1, 2001, within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, the reglementary period prescribed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to avail of said action. On July 9, 2001 close to two months after said receipt, petitioner filed the present petition. Evidently, petitioner has lost his remedy of appeal. The filing of the instant petition for certiorari cannot be used as a means of recovering his appeal as it is settled that certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal.[10] The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[11] | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| [36] G.R. Nos. 162814-17, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 256, 277. | |||||