Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. GREGORIO GO v. JOHNSON Y. TONG

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 167620 2007-04-03	CAROLINA B. VILLENA v. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Go v. Tong,[40] reiterated in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[41] it was held that while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period; more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.[42]
	GR NO. 146818 2006-02-06	JAN-DEC CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[15] Go v. Tong, G.R. No. 151942, November 27, 2003, 416 SCRA 557, 563.
	GR NO. 144755 2005-06-08	SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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 on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[22] In contrast, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and proper only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[23] Thus, certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.[24]
	GR NO. 140954 2005-04-12	HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.[46] Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply.[47]
	GR No. 141336 2004-06-29	RODOLFO G. VALENCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For certiorari to lie, it must be shown that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion,[40] or more specifically, that it exercised its power arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility; and such exercise was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform it or to act in contemplation of law.[41] Petitioners failed in this respect.