This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-05-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Even if the petition will be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the same should be dismissed. In Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,[50] which has been often cited in subsequent cases,[51] the Court declared that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. | |||||