This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Gotesco was not without fault. Gotesco never complained against the manner in which its counsel had handled the case, until late in the day. Gotesco still hired Atty. Ungson before the CA after his supposed blunders before the RTC. One is bound by the decisions of one's counsel regarding the conduct of the case, especially where the former does not complain against the manner in which the latter handled the case.[23] To give due course to Gotesco's stance would enable every party to render inutile any adverse order or decision through the simple expedient of alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel.[24] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, certiorari as a special civil action can prosper only when the following requisites concur: (a) a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (b) there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for annulling or modifying the proceeding.[27] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| What petitioner should have filed is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules. We have consistently held that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.[6] | |||||