Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 165073 2006-06-30	HEIRS OF JUAN GRIÑO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CARPIO MORALES, J.
While this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period under said Rule, it finds nothing in the present case to warrant a liberal application of the Rules, no justification having been proffered, as just stated, why the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period.[27]
	GR NO. 165403 2006-02-27	INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has already elucidated in numerous cases that the special civil action for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which the petitioner already lost.[8] We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar 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."[9] Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum despite the availability of that remedy,[10] certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal.[11]
	GR NO. 165403 2006-02-27	INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, there is no reason why the question being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition, could not have been raised on appeal.[12] Mere errors of judgment cannot be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari.[13] Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[14] Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari, for where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they would, at the most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.[15]