This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| LFUC's acts of forum shopping are willfull and deliberate and the penalty therefor is that both its petition with the Court of Appeals and motion for reconsideration before the DOLE-VI Regional Director should face dismissal or denial.[80] But even if there were no such "willfulness and deliberateness" on LFUC's part, the penalty for forum shopping is still dismissal of one of the actions but not necessarily of the newer one. In the case at bar, although the motion for reconsideration with the Regional Director came later than the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, We have previously held that in such a situation, it is the earlier action - the petition for certiorari — that must be dismissed. We have ruled that the petition for certiorari is, in fact, an act of forum shopping that must yield to the motion for reconsideration (treated by DOLE-VI Regional Director as an appeal) which is the appropriate and adequate remedy.[81] The Court held further that: Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that a petition for certiorari is available only when "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." A petition for certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and the availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. As the Court has held, these two remedies are "mutually exclusive." | |||||