This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As a final note, let it be emphasized that while the court has the power to relax procedural rules "for persuasive and weighty reasons," this does not mean that "[they] are to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights."[62] Just like any other rule, "[procedural rules] are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed."[63] | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties.[15] If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized.[16] With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document.[17] A corporation has no power, except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.[18] | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties.[15] If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized.[16] With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document.[17] A corporation has no power, except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors.[18] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Although the Court has absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari, it does so only (1) when the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court Circulars.[9] [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2010-07-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the petitioner cannot come before this Court using an incorrect remedy and claim that it was oppressed, or that its rights to due process and equal protection have been violated by an administrative issuance that does not even affect its rights and obligations. The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that the Court issues only under closely defined grounds and procedures that litigants and their lawyers must scrupulously observe. They cannot seek refuge under the umbrella of this remedy on the basis of an undemonstrated claim that they raise issues of transcendental importance, while at the same time flouting the basic ground rules for the remedy's grant.[42] | |||||
|
2010-02-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In petitions for certiorari, procedural rules must be strictly observed. In Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes,[25] the Court held that: Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law. | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes,[21] the Court held that the appellate court was correct in dismissing the petition where the verification and certification for non-forum shopping were signed by only one of the two petitioners. The Court held: The verification of the petition and certification on non-forum shopping before the Court of Appeals were signed only by Jimenez. There is no showing that he was authorized to sign the same by Athena, his co-petitioner. | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes,[23] the Court stressed that "certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by the law." The Court further explained in Athena:The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Although the court has absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari, it does so only (1) when the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court Circulars. Clearly petitioners in their petition before the Court of Appeals committed procedural errors. | |||||