This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-23 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The appellate court committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC resolution. PPA avers that the failure of NIASSI to file the necessary motion for reconsideration before it could resort to the remedy of certiorari is fatal. This contention is flawed. As early as Director of Lands v. Santamaria,[49] this Court held that there are notable exceptions[50] to the general rule that a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resort to certiorari can be availed of. This rule has been applied by this Court in a plethora of cases.[51] A motion for reconsideration is no longer necessary when other special circumstances warrant immediate and more direct action.[52] | |||||
|
2004-07-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The pertinent law in relation to this case is Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Where the error is in the judge's findings and conclusions or to cure erroneous conclusions of law and fact, appeal is the remedy.[20] | |||||
|
2001-12-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| True, the trial court has the discretion to conduct a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. In the case at bar, however, the trial court committed a grave abuse of its discretion when it denied the motion for preliminary hearing. As we have discussed above, some of these defenses, which petitioners invoked as grounds for the dismissal of the action, appeared to be indubitable, contrary to the pronouncement of the trial court. Indeed, the abuse of discretion it committed amounted to an evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,[19] which would have warranted the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners. | |||||