Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAYOR EDGARDO G. FLORES v. SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PAMPANGA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175145 2008-03-28	SPS. ALFREDO and SHIRLEY YAP v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' argument that they filed the Petition for Certiorari without filing a motion for reconsideration because there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law except via a Petition for Certiorari does not convince. We have held that the "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or Resolution.[43] The mere allegation that there is "no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy" is not one of the exceptions to the rule that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may be filed.
	GR NO. 170096-97 2006-03-03	RICARDO SANTOS v. ILUMINADA CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[12] G.R. No. 159022, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 278, 282.
	GR No. 166755 2005-11-18	ELMER F. CERVANTES v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As held in Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga,[21] the "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in the foregoing Rule is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or Resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari,[22] subject to certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR NO. 141796 2005-06-15	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, 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.[15] 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. The motion for reconsideration, therefore, is a condition sine qua non before filing a petition for certiorari.[16]
	GR No. 146559 2004-08-13	PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration[15] of the trial court's January 17, 2000 Order having been denied for lack of merit by Order[16] of February 22, 2000, petitioner assailed said orders by certiorari[17] before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59022.