This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As we have held in numerous cases, a special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal.[15] We have often enough reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure lies only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[16] Certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[17] In this case, petitioner utterly failed to provide any justification for her resort to a special civil action for certiorari, when the remedy of appeal by petition for review was clearly available. | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J |
||||
| In this case, petitioners seek this Court's determination of the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence presented. Moreover, petitioners question the certifications issued by respondent's immediate supervisor, Mrs. Norma Geronimo, by virtue of the latter's letter dated July 11, 2000 that she did not personally know respondent. Petitioners also introduce for the first time in evidence, a letter from the PWU in support of their allegation that respondent was taking up an Advertising course thereat during the contested period. Indubitably, these issues are factual in character. As the issues raised are not purely questions of law and are, therefore, not cognizable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45, we are constrained from exercising our jurisdiction in this case. Petitioners ought to remember that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not for the Court to weigh these pieces of evidence all over again.[23] Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court. [24] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In grave misconduct, there must be substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of are corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[26] Respondent sheriff's introduction in evidence of the falsified police report, committing perjury and giving false testimony, are plainly corrupt acts and show an intent to disregard flagrantly the law. They constitute grave misconduct that corrodes respect for the courts. Incidentally, respondent sheriff's acts of perjury and of giving false testimony, which show a predisposition to lie, defraud and deceive, also constitute dishonesty.[27] | |||||
|
2003-03-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| These findings of fact by respondent COA sustaining the conclusion to disallow the payment of P239,000.00 in favor of V.A. Rivera Enterprises are entitled to respect. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally respected and even accorded finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these agencies from handling matters falling under their specialized jurisdiction.[7] In Tuazon vs. Godoy,[8] this Court held:"Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case (Philtranco Service Enterprise, Inc. vs. NLRC, 288 SCRA 585 [1998]). It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower court, tribunal or office. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court (Manzano vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 688 [1997])." | |||||