Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ORLANDO APOSTOL v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 194516 2015-06-17	BALDOMERA FOCULAN-FUDALAN v. SPS. DANILO OCIAL AND DAVIDICA BONGCARAS-OCIAL MENDOZA, J.
Baldomera herself should have exerted some efforts to inquire as to the status of her appeal. She should not have been complacent. "While this Court has recognized that a non-lawyer litigant is not expected to be familiar with the intricacies of the legal procedures, a layman nonetheless must not be allowed to conveniently profit from his improvident mistakes. Thus, it has been equally stressed that litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case; instead, they should give the necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake is ultimately their interest."[28]
	GR No. 171101 2011-11-22	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, as admitted by FARM itself, this issue was raised for the first time by FARM in its Memorandum dated September 24, 2010 filed before this Court.[28] In this regard, it should be noted that "[a]s a legal recourse, the special civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review."[29] The certiorari jurisdiction of this Court is narrow in scope as it is restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and not errors of judgment.[30] To allow additional issues at this stage of the proceedings is violative of fair play, justice and due process.[31]
	GR No. 178899 2010-11-15	PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK v. FELIPE CHUA BRION, J.
Contrary to PBB's contention, however, certiorari was not the proper recourse for respondent Chua. The propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a petition for certiorari,[35] since it imputes error on the lower court's judgment. It is well-settled that certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge's findings and conclusions of law and fact.[36] As we explained in Apostol v. Court of Appeals:[37]
	GR No. 152092 2010-08-04	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. RADIOMARINE NETWORK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As a legal recourse, the special civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review. The jurisdiction of this Court is narrow in scope; it is restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Indeed, as long as the courts below act within their jurisdiction, alleged errors committed in the exercise of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for review.[72]