Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SHUHEI YASUDA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 127851 2011-06-02	CORONA INTERNATIONAL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
illusory. Such reasons must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.[7] We note that the reason of the trial court in granting execution pending appeal was to prevent the irreparable collapse of petitioner's business operation and that private respondent's appeal is patently unmeritorious and would only result in the delay of the final
	GR NO. 149051 2006-06-30	BIBLIA T. BANAGA v. JOSE S. MAJADUCON TINGA, J.
To rule that a special civil action for certiorari constitutes the sole and exclusive remedy to assail a writ or order of execution would unduly restrict the remedy available to a party prejudiced by an improper or illegal execution. A special civil action for certiorari is not a mode of appeal where the appellate court reviews the errors of fact or law committed by the lower court. The issue in a special civil action for certiorari is whether the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[18]
	GR NO. 152238 2005-01-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
On the other hand, Section 1(f) of Rule 41[22] of the Rules unequivocally states that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution. Rule 41 adds that in instances in which an order is not appealable, the aggrieved party's recourse is a special civil action under Rule 65. Hence, an order of execution, when issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[23]
	GR No. 127851 2000-10-18	CORONA INTERNATIONAL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
illusory. Such reasons must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.[7] We note that the reason of the trial court in granting execution pending appeal was to prevent the irreparable collapse of petitioner's business operation and that private respondent's appeal is patently unmeritorious and would only result in the delay of the final