Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CECILIA B. ESTINOZO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 196539 2012-10-10	MARIETTA N. PORTILLO v. RUDOLF LIETZ PEREZ, J.
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy.[13] If a petition for review is available, even prescribed, the nature of the questions of law intended to be raised on appeal is of no consequence. It may well be that those questions of law will treat exclusively of whether or not the judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. This is immaterial. The remedy is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action.[14]
	GR No. 187984 2010-11-15	FRANCISCO A. LABAO v. LOLITO N. FLORES BRION, J.
Needless to stress, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[24] All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory; execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party.[25] Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.[26] After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits.[27] Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation, and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.[28]
	GR No. 152092 2010-08-04	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. RADIOMARINE NETWORK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The well-settled rule is that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved party's remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive.[75]
	GR NO. 151973 2009-07-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO PERALTA, J.
The failure of the petitioner to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by law renders final the decision sought to be appealed. As a result, no court could exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the decision.[35] It is settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[36] Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.[37]
	GR No. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TINGA, J.
On the other hand, respondent posits that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion. He invokes Republic Act No. 7730, which "removes the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives, from the effects of the restrictive provisions of Article 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, regarding the confinement of jurisdiction based on the amount of claims."[13] Respondent also claims that petitioner was not denied due process since even when the case was with the Regional Director, a hearing was conducted and pieces of evidence were presented. Respondent stands by the propriety of the Court of Appeals' ruling that there exists an employer-employee relationship between him and petitioner. Finally, respondent argues that the instant petition for certiorari is a wrong mode of appeal considering that petitioner had earlier filed a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals; petitioner, instead, should have filed a Petition for Review.[14]