Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSELITO LAGERA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164344 2008-12-23	KENJI OKADA v. SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
In a long line of cases,[45] the Court has consistently ruled that "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In Jaca v. Davao Lumber Co.,[46] the Court ruled:x x x Although Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari may only be invoked when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law," this rule is not without exception. The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. It is the inadequacy - not the mere absence - of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ that usually determines the propriety of certiorari.[47]
	GR No. 164344 2008-11-23	KENJI OKADA v. SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
In a long line of cases,[45] the Court has consistently ruled that "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In Jaca v. Davao Lumber Co.,[46] the Court ruled: x x x Although Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari may only be invoked when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law," this rule is not without exception. The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. It is the inadequacy - not the mere absence - of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ that usually determines the propriety of certiorari.[47]
	GR No. 175460 2008-04-14	METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION v. PIGLAS NFWU-KMU CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have held that the "plain," "speedy," and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court[14] is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order or Resolution. As we consistently held in numerous cases, a motion for reconsideration is indispensable for it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it might have committed before resort to the courts can be had.[15]