Lawyerly

GR No. 184203

2014-11-26

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY

LEONEN, J.

This court, "in the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,"[199] has treated petitions for certiorari as an appeal: "(1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules."[200] Considering that "the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the petition and the character of the relief sought,"[201] a petition which "actually avers errors of judgment rather than errors than that of jurisdiction"[202] may be considered a petition for review.

GR No. 204589

2014-11-19

RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

Be that as it may, the Court, in several cases before, had treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 45, in accordance with the liberal spirit and in the interest of substantial justice, particularly (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[17] The case at bench satisfies all the above requisites and, hence, there is ample justification to treat this petition for certiorari as a petition for review. Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought.[18] Here, stripped of allegations of "grave abuse of discretion," the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction, which are the appropriate subjects of a petition for review on certiorari.

GR No. 165273

2010-03-10

LEAH PALMA v. DANILO P. GALVEZ

PERALTA, J.

In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by the service of summons or by the latter's voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of the former.[16] Private respondent was a Filipino resident who was temporarily out of the Philippines at the time of the service of summons; thus, service of summons on her is governed by Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. - When an action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 170122

2009-10-12

CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

VELASCO JR., J.

The stringent rules on valid service of summons for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendants, however, admits of exceptions, as when the party voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by asking affirmative relief.[25] In the instant case, the Republic asserts that petitioner is estopped from questioning improper service of summons since the improvident service of summons in both forfeiture cases had been cured by their (petitioner and her children) voluntary appearance in the forfeiture cases. The Republic points to the various pleadings filed by petitioner and her children during the subject forfeiture hearings. We cannot subscribe to the Republic's views.

GR No. 181480

2009-01-30

JOSEFINA CADA v. TIME SAVER LAUNDRY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In quasi-judicial proceedings before the NLRC and its arbitration branch, procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed. Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. The constitutional requirement of due process with respect to service of summons only exacts that the service of summons be such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice desired.[40] Once the service provided by the rules reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered, the traditional notion of fair play is satisfied, due process is served.[41]

GR No. 175006

2008-11-27

BELEN A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[44] we have, before,[45] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, but only when the former was filed within the reglementary period for filing the latter. Regrettably, this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu. The present Petition for Certiorari was filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review, and without any reason being offered therefor.

GR No. 174350

2008-08-13

SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.) It is elementary in remedial law that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[21] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[22] And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[23] this Court has, before,[24] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;[25] this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu.

GR NO. 166421

2006-09-05

JOURNALISTS v. NLRC

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice.[22] As the instant petition was filed within the prescribed fifteen-day period, and in view of the substantial issues raised, the Court resolves to give due course to the petition and treat the same as a petition for review on certiorari.[23]

GR NO. 141805

2005-08-08

GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court also notes that petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7, 2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case before it. In any case, the Court may disregard petitioner's lapse and treat the present petition as one for review under Rule 45. This is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[25] The petition in this case actually asserts errors of judgment committed by the CA, which are proper in a petition for review,[26] and it is settled that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought that determine the nature of an action.[27]

GR No. 141805

2005-07-08

GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court also notes that petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7, 2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case before it. In any case, the Court may disregard petitioner's lapse and treat the present petition as one for review under Rule 45. This is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[25] The petition in this case actually asserts errors of judgment committed by the CA, which are proper in a petition for review,[26] and it is settled that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought that determine the nature of an action.[27]

GR No. 158874

2004-11-10

MAYOR SOBAIDA T. BALINDONG OF MUNICIPALITY OF TAGOLOAN v. VICE GOVERNOR TIMOTEO D. DACALOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well settled is the rule that certiorari will lie only when a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[18] As a condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari, Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court additionally requires that "no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" must be available.[19]

GR No. 147369

2003-10-23

SPS. PATRICK JOSE v. SPS. HELEN BOYON

PANGANIBAN, J.

As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal service of summons is preferred to substituted service. Only if the former cannot be made promptly can the process server resort to the latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons must (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business, of the defendant.[7] It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective.[8]

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
This court, "in the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,"[199] has treated petitions for certiorari as an appeal: "(1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules."[200] Considering that "the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the petition and the character of the relief sought,"[201] a petition which "actually avers errors of judgment rather than errors than that of jurisdiction"[202] may be considered a petition for review.
	GR No. 204589 2014-11-19	RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Be that as it may, the Court, in several cases before, had treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 45, in accordance with the liberal spirit and in the interest of substantial justice, particularly (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[17] The case at bench satisfies all the above requisites and, hence, there is ample justification to treat this petition for certiorari as a petition for review. Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought.[18] Here, stripped of allegations of "grave abuse of discretion," the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction, which are the appropriate subjects of a petition for review on certiorari.
	GR No. 165273 2010-03-10	LEAH PALMA v. DANILO P. GALVEZ PERALTA, J.
In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by the service of summons or by the latter's voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of the former.[16] Private respondent was a Filipino resident who was temporarily out of the Philippines at the time of the service of summons; thus, service of summons on her is governed by Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. - When an action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 170122 2009-10-12	CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
The stringent rules on valid service of summons for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendants, however, admits of exceptions, as when the party voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by asking affirmative relief.[25] In the instant case, the Republic asserts that petitioner is estopped from questioning improper service of summons since the improvident service of summons in both forfeiture cases had been cured by their (petitioner and her children) voluntary appearance in the forfeiture cases. The Republic points to the various pleadings filed by petitioner and her children during the subject forfeiture hearings. We cannot subscribe to the Republic's views.
	GR No. 181480 2009-01-30	JOSEFINA CADA v. TIME SAVER LAUNDRY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In quasi-judicial proceedings before the NLRC and its arbitration branch, procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed. Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. The constitutional requirement of due process with respect to service of summons only exacts that the service of summons be such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice desired.[40] Once the service provided by the rules reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered, the traditional notion of fair play is satisfied, due process is served.[41]
	GR No. 175006 2008-11-27	BELEN A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[44] we have, before,[45] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, but only when the former was filed within the reglementary period for filing the latter. Regrettably, this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu. The present Petition for Certiorari was filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review, and without any reason being offered therefor.
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.) It is elementary in remedial law that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[21] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[22] And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[23] this Court has, before,[24] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;[25] this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu.
	GR NO. 166421 2006-09-05	JOURNALISTS v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice.[22] As the instant petition was filed within the prescribed fifteen-day period, and in view of the substantial issues raised, the Court resolves to give due course to the petition and treat the same as a petition for review on certiorari.[23]
	GR NO. 141805 2005-08-08	GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court also notes that petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7, 2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case before it. In any case, the Court may disregard petitioner's lapse and treat the present petition as one for review under Rule 45. This is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[25] The petition in this case actually asserts errors of judgment committed by the CA, which are proper in a petition for review,[26] and it is settled that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought that determine the nature of an action.[27]
	GR No. 141805 2005-07-08	GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court also notes that petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7, 2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case before it. In any case, the Court may disregard petitioner's lapse and treat the present petition as one for review under Rule 45. This is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[25] The petition in this case actually asserts errors of judgment committed by the CA, which are proper in a petition for review,[26] and it is settled that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought that determine the nature of an action.[27]
	GR No. 158874 2004-11-10	MAYOR SOBAIDA T. BALINDONG OF MUNICIPALITY OF TAGOLOAN v. VICE GOVERNOR TIMOTEO D. DACALOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well settled is the rule that certiorari will lie only when a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[18] As a condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari, Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court additionally requires that "no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" must be available.[19]
	GR No. 147369 2003-10-23	SPS. PATRICK JOSE v. SPS. HELEN BOYON PANGANIBAN, J.
As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal service of summons is preferred to substituted service. Only if the former cannot be made promptly can the process server resort to the latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons must (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business, of the defendant.[7] It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective.[8]

HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO