Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO S. MERCADO v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 152101 2009-09-08	EMCOR INCORPORATED v. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES PERALTA, J.
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not identical to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 45 provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[10] Thus, petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 instead of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
	GR No. 177961 2009-04-07	LOURDES A. SABLE v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been held that the proper remedy of the party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not identical with a petition for review under Rule 65. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45.[26] One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.[27] Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, as in this case, his petition may be dismissed outright.[28]
	GR No. 181384 2009-03-13	MACAPANTON B. BATUGAN v. RASAD G. BALINDONG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At this point, we reiterate that the orders excluding the Coloi Farmland from the partition have attained finality and can no longer be assailed. Petitioner failed to timely appeal therefrom, whether in the form of an ordinary appeal or an appeal by certiorari. Instead, he filed a motion to fully implement and enforce the March 7, 2007 Writ of Execution which is actually a substitute for lost appeal. This is not allowed. While procedural irregularities are on occasion set aside in the interest of justice, it must be stressed that liberality of construction of the rules should not be a panacea for all procedural maladies.[37]
	GR No. 157707 2008-10-29	MARCIAL FAJARDO v. CA QUISUMBING, ACTING C.J.
It bears stressing that he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it in a manner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules.[19] The liberal construction of the Rules should not be a remedy for all procedural maladies. This Court will not tolerate wanton disregard of the procedural rules under the guise of liberal construction.[20]
	GR NO. 169356 2007-08-28	CARMEN FANGONIL - HERRERA v. TOMAS FANGONIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With respect to procedural matters, respondents argue that the petition is a combination of an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and an independent civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. This is based on the observation that petitioner impleaded the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents while at the same time raising issues of fact alone. Respondents posit that these are indicative of an "intention to categorize the petition to be under both Rules 65 and 45 of the Rules of Court" and should be dismissed outright. Although petitioner erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents, petitioner clearly and rightly invoked Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court as the remedy availed of. As we held in National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals,[16] the appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals, regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[17] The correct procedure is not to implead the Court of Appeals. This Court has ruled in several instances that where the Court of Appeals is impleaded as respondent in the Petition for Review, and the petition clearly invokes Rule 45, the Court of Appeals is merely omitted from the title of the case pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.[18] The Court of Appeals is herein omitted from the title of the case, as a liberal interpretation of the rules on technicality, in pursuit of the ends of justice and equity.[19]
	GR NOS. 148839-40 2006-11-02	NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA PICOP RESOURCES v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
Meanwhile, in Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., v. CA, we held that the remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.[19] Thus, a party should not join both petitions in one pleading. In Mercado v. Court Appeals, we held that "when a party adopts an improper remedy," as in this case, "his petition may be dismissed outright."[20] We then further elucidated that:Indeed, not infrequently, litigants and parties to a petition have invoked liberal construction of the Rules of Court to justify lapses in its observance. Hopefully, it is not simply a cover-up of their own neglect or sheer ignorance of procedure. While indeed this Court has on occasion set aside procedural irregularities in the interest of justice, it must be stressed that liberality of construction of the rules should not be a panacea for all procedural maladies. For this Court will not tolerate wanton disregard of the procedural rules under the guise of liberal construction.[21]
	GR NO. 154284 2006-10-27	BIBIANA FARMS v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied) Under the foregoing rule, non-compliance with any of the requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Corollarily, the rule is that a court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, unless the docket fees are paid. And where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fees, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.[18]
	GR NO. 164588 2005-10-19	NAUTICA CANNING CORPORATION v. ROBERTO C. YUMUL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the outset, we note that petitioners' recourse to this Court via a "combined" petition under Rule 65 and an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is irregular. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals, which is not identical to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals is appealed by filing a petition for review, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[13] On the other hand, the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is filed when petitioner has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.