This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-07-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| (a) Did RTC (Branch 138) have jurisdiction over the intra-corporate controversy (election contest)? (b) Who among the contending parties or groups held the controlling interest in POTC and, consequently, in PHILCOMSAT and PHC? In G.R. No. 184712-14, the petitioners postulate that the Sandiganbayan had original and exclusive jurisdiction over sequestered corporations, sequestration-related cases, and any and over all incidents arising from, or incidental or related to such cases;[112] that it was error on the part of the CA to conclude that the Sandiganbayan was automatically ousted of jurisdiction over the sequestered assets once the complaint alleged an intra-corporate dispute due to the sequestered assets being in custodia legis of the Sandiganbayan;[113] that the sequestration of POTC and PHILCOMSAT remained despite the approval of the compromise agreement in G.R. No. 141796 and G.R. No. 141804; that because the proceedings involving the shares of the Nieto, Africa and Ponce Enrile Families were still pending and had not yet been finally resolved,[114] the RTC could not render a valid judgment on the dispute because it had not been designated as a Commercial Court;[115] and that the conduct of a pre-trial and the submission of a pre-trial brief were mandatory under all cases filed under the Interim Rules.[116] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| nature of Civil Case No. 04-1049; that the controversy, albeit involving an intra-corporate dispute, was still cognizable by the Sandiganbayan because POTC and PHILCOMSAT shares were under sequestration;[127] that the ruling in G.R. Nos. 141796 and 141804 does not constitute res judicata; that even assuming that the RTC (Branch 138) had jurisdiction, its authority was revoked prior to the issuance of its assailed judgment;[128] and that PHC was denied due process due to the RTC's open violation of the Interim Rules.[129] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In its Comment, PHILCOMSAT counters that the insistence of PHC that the sequestration of PHILCOMSAT automatically took away the jurisdiction of the RTC and conferred it to the Sandiganbayan was misplaced;[130] that the rulings in Olaguer and Del Moral are not on all fours with this case;[131] that the issue of the shares being ill-gotten was already settled in G.R. Nos. 141796 and 141804;[132] that the RTC (Branch 138) had ample authority to decide the intra-corporate controversy because the case, being already submitted for decision, remained cognizable by the same branch;[133] and that the conduct of the pre-trial was not required in election cases.[134] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Having been sealed with court approval, the Compromise Agreement has the force of res judicata between the parties and should be complied with in accordance with its terms. Pursuant thereto, Victoria C. de los Reyes, Corporate Secretary of the POTC, transmitted to Mr. Magdangal B. Elma, then Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and Chairman of PCGG, Stock Certificate No. 131 dated January 10, 2000, issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, for 4,727 POTC shares. Thus, the Compromise Agreement was partly implemented.[146] | |||||
|
2013-03-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| At any rate, even if the Court allows the premature recourse to certiorari without the petitioner having filed a motion for reconsideration in the trial court, the petition would still fail. Nothing is more settled than the principle that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," as contemplated by the Rules of Court, is "the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power" that is so patent and gross that it "amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law."[29] Such capricious, whimsical and arbitrary acts must be apparent on the face of the assailed order.[30] The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the RTC issued its June 22, 2010 Order with grave abuse of discretion. This petitioner failed to do. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As a rule, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, lies only when the lower court has been given the opportunity to correct the error imputed to it through a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution.[21] This rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in cases of urgency. As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.[22] | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari.[11] Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.[12] The rationale of the rule rests upon the presumption that the court or administrative body which issued the assailed order or resolution may amend the same, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error.[13] | |||||