You're currently signed in as:
User

MILAGROS B. NAYVE v. CA

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2006-09-26
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There are strict requirements petitioner ought to have followed when it sought to avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[24] It should have attached clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject of the petition.[25] There is a sound reason behind this policy and it is to ensure that the copy of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed is a faithful reproduction of the original so that the reviewing court would have a definitive basis in its determination of whether the court, body or tribunal which rendered the assailed judgment or order committed grave abuse of discretion.[26] Also, it should have appended photocopies of material portions of the record as are referred to in the assailed judgment or final order and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto[27] unless a summary thereof can already be found in a document, a certified true copy of which is attached to the petition.[28]
2005-11-18
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion.  Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules.[24]  Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.  To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so,[25] which petitioner failed to do.  Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.