Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIRST CORPORATION v. FORMER SIXTH DIVISION OF CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 193261 2012-04-24	MEYNARDO SABILI v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
National Statistics Office (NSO) Advisory on Marriages regarding petitioner[13]
	GR No. 173396 2010-09-22	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
The Court further expounded in First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals,[8] thus: It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. It is not for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo. (Emphasis supplied.)[9]
	GR No. 171655 2009-07-22	PEOPLE v. PABLO L. ESTACIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court because of the trial court's unique advantage in observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor, deportment, and conduct of the witnesses as they testify.[26] This Court need not thus pass upon the findings of fact of the trial court, especially if they have been affirmed on appeal by the appellate court, as in the present case.[27] Nevertheless, the Court combed through the records of the case and found no ground to merit a reversal of appellants' conviction.
	GR No. 160772 2009-07-13	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO CARPIO, J.
The arguments raised by petitioner are not errors involving jurisdiction but one of judgment, which is beyond the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. As we have ruled in First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals,[4] to wit: It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. It is not for this Court to re- examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.
	GR No. 147097 2009-06-05	CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
The second issue advanced by petitioners is that the Ombudsman's disapproval of the OSP Resolution recommending dismissal of the cases is based on misapprehension of facts, speculations, surmises and conjectures. The question is really whether the Ombudsman correctly ruled that there was enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause. That issue, however, pertains to a mere error of judgment. It must be stressed that certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. This has been emphasized in First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals,[18] to wit:It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. It is not for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.[19]
	GR No. 161778 2009-04-07	CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
Procedurally, petitioner cannot file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules where appeal is available, even if the ground availed of is grave abuse of discretion.[34] A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, as the same should not be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[35]
	GR No. 163017 2008-06-18	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that certiorari is a remedy meant to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. As ruled in First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals,[6] to wit:It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. It is not for this Court to re- examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo. [7] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 162739 2008-02-12	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-SANTIAGO CITY v. CHELLY P. NACINO NACHURA, J.
While it is true that, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, a petition for certiorari may be treated as having been filed under Rule 45, the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before the CA cannot be treated as such, without the exceptional circumstances mentioned above, because it was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review.[22] AMA received the assailed Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator on April 15, 2003 and it filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA only on June 16, 2003.[23] By parity of reasoning, the same reglementary period should apply to appeals taken from the decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators under Rule 43. Based on the foregoing disquisitions, the assailed Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator had already become final and executory and beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[24]
	GR No. 170244 2007-11-28	ILOILO LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Moreover, while it is true that this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, may treat a Petition for Certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, the instant Petition cannot be treated as such, primarily because it was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review[25] and even beyond the extended period of thirty (30) days granted to petitioner by this Court, without the attending instances aforementioned. Based on the foregoing disquisitions, the assailed decision of the CA had already become final and executory and beyond the purview of this Court to act upon.[26]