This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We must emphasize that the special civil action for certiorari cannot prosper when there are no special circumstances clearly demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal. As this Court held in Bristol Myers Squibb, (Phils.), Inc. v. Viloria[18] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Viloria,[19] this Court declared with clarity that:The rule may be relaxed where a careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case warrants liberality in the application of pertinent rules of procedure. However, the appellant must establish a concrete, cogent, and valid reason for his failure to comply with the mandatory requirement under the Labor Code and the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. | |||||
|
2006-02-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the issue of whether or not the petition for certiorari instituted by the petitioner in the CA is proper, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, to nullify an order denying a motion to quash the Information is inappropriate because the aggrieved party has a remedy of appeal in the ordinary course of law. Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive of each other. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to continue with the case in due course and, when an unfavorable judgment is rendered, assail the order and the decision on appeal. However, if the trial court issues the order denying the motion to quash the Amended Information with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, or if such order is patently erroneous, or null and void for being contrary to the Constitution, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the accused may resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[35] A special civil action for certiorari is also available where there are special circumstances clearly demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal. As this Court held in Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Viloria:[36] | |||||