This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We are very much aware of the time-honored rule that "the government cannot be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its agents."[49] Suffice it to state, however, that this precept is not absolute. As jurisprudence teaches, this rule on estoppel cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice.[50] | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A court with appellate jurisdiction can review both the facts and the law, including questions of jurisdiction.[72] It can set aside an erroneous decision and even nullify the same, if warranted. Appeal is a speedy remedy, as an adverse party can file its appeal from a final decision or order immediately after receiving it. A party, who is alleging that an appeal will not promptly relieve it of the injurious effects of the judgment, should establish facts to show how the appeal is not speedy or adequate.[73] VCP's empty protestations, therefore, fail to impress. There is no reason, and VCP cannot explain, why an appeal would not be speedy and adequate to address its assigned errors.[74] VCP cannot complain of delay because it was guilty of delay itself, and it even waited until the 58th day of its receipt of the CA Decision before taking action. Clearly, petitioner resorted to certiorari as a substitute for its lost appeal.[75] The CA did not err in dismissing the same. | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The government cannot plausibly hide behind the mantle of its general immunity to resist the application of this equitable principle for "[t]he rule on non-estoppel of the government is not designed to perpetrate an injustice."[108] Hence, this Court has allowed several exceptions to the rule on the government's non-estoppel. As succinctly explained in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals:[109] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. That action is not a substitute for a lost appeal in general; it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum.[60] In Madrigal Transport Inc., v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[61] We held that where an appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. Obviously, this remedy was resorted to by the petitioner due to the fact that its notice of appeal was dismissed by the RTC for having been filed out of time. | |||||