Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 178989 2010-03-18	EAGLE RIDGE GOLF v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Certiorari is an extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter of right.[29] Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.[30]
	GR NO. 167321 2006-07-31	EPIFANIO SAN JUAN v. JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
On December 1, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 60-day period counted from notice to petitioner of the trial court's February 27, 2004 Order. The appellate court declared that the May 6, 2004 motion for reconsideration of petitioner was a pro forma motion because it was a second motion for reconsideration which sought the same relief as the first motion, hence, did not toll the running of the 60-day period.[22] The appellate court cited the ruling of this Court in University of Immaculate Concepcion v. Secretary of Labor and Employment.[23]
	GR No. 162783 2005-07-14	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. INC. v. MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.[21]
	GR No. 142609 2004-11-25	SEASTAR MARINE SERVICES v. LUCIO A. BUL-AN CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.[25]