Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FORTUNE GUARANTEE v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 196200 2013-09-11	ERNESTO DY v. GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS MENDOZA, J.
Therefore, a misappreciation of evidence on the part of the lower court, as asserted by petitioner, may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certiorari because the issue raised by the petitioner does not involve any jurisdictional ground.[24] It is a general rule of procedural law that when a party adopts an inappropriate mode of appeal, his petition may be dismissed outright to prevent the erring party from benefiting from his neglect and mistakes.[25] There are exceptions to this otherwise ironclad rule, however. One is when the strict application of procedural technicalities would hinder the expeditious disposition of this case on the merits,[26] such as in this case.
	GR No. 154462 2011-01-19	SPS. RUBEN AND MYRNA LEYNES v. FORMER TENTH DIVISION OF CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, 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, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. A special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.[19]
	GR No. 181455-56 2009-12-04	SANTIAGO CUA v. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, 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 this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45.[58]
	GR No. 167938 2009-02-19	HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Time and again, we said that the special civil action for certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal under Rule 45.[16] Here, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Hanjin failed to prove that it had no appeal or any other efficacious remedy against the decision of the Court of Appeals and the proper remedy of a party aggrieved is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As provided in 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. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent civil action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.[17]
	GR NO. 146818 2006-02-06	JAN-DEC CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[15] It seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court, tribunal, or officer. In contrast, a special civil action for certiorari 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.[16] It is an extraordinary process for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.[17]
	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. 151942 2003-11-27	SPS. GREGORIO GO v. JOHNSON Y. TONG PANGANIBAN, J.
Very recently, in Fortune Guarantee and Insurance Corporation v. CA ,[17] this Court had the occasion to discuss this matter. In that case, the petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent trial court judge when the latter issued the assailed Order granting a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Said the Court in that case:"[I]t must be pointed out that petitioner adopted the wrong mode of appeal in bringing this case before us. The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. x x x."[18] In the present case, petitioners are appealing a final decision of the CA by resorting to Rule 65, when their remedy should be based on Rule 45.[19] When an error of judgment of the CA is brought up to this Court for review, the action is properly designated as a petition for review and not a special civil action. [20] Thus, while the instant Petition is one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the assigned errors are more properly addressed in a petition for review under Rule 45.