This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We would like to stress that petitioners questioned before the CA the April 2001 Order of the RTC via a special civil action for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. We agree with the CA's general conclusion that certiorari was not proper, as there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion. As correctly stated by the appellate court, and as this Court has repeatedly held, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.[37] It does not include correction of the trial court's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon.[38] It does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[39] | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes further that no appeal was interposed to challenge the CA's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 75185. The said decision declaring petitioner as illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages, therefore, already attained finality. Established is the rule that when a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court will have the power to review the said judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and will set to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.[27] We have further stressed in prior cases that just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[28] | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Macawiag v. Balindog,[6] the Court emphasized this principle, thus:The well-settled rule is that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved party's remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive. Consequently, when petitioner filed her petition in this Court, the decision of the Shari'a District Court was already final and executory. | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy.[37] The nature of the questions of law intended to be raised on appeal is of no consequence. It may well be that those questions of law will treat exclusively of whether or not the judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. This is immaterial. The remedy is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action.[38] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The law and the Rules clearly provide that the remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeals in a situation such as that obtaining in the instant case. Thus, appeal being available to them, petitioners effectively foreclosed their right to resort to a special civil action for certiorari, a limited form of review and a remedy of last recourse, which lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[21] The aforesaid remedies are mutually exclusive. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy.[22] | |||||