This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. When an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the basis is grave abuse of discretion.[29] The RTC Order subject of the petition was a final judgment which disposed of the case on the merits; hence, an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Third. While we agree that petitioner failed to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts, which, under ordinary circumstances, warrants the outright dismissal of the case,[42] we opt to relax the rules following the pronouncement in Chua v. Ang,[43] to wit: [I]t must be remembered that [the principle of hierarchy of courts] generally applies to cases involving conflicting factual allegations. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before us as we are not triers of facts.[44] A strict application of this rule may be excused when the reason behind the rule is not present in a case, as in the present case, where the issues are not factual but purely legal. In these types of questions, this Court has the ultimate say so that we merely abbreviate the review process if we, because of the unique circumstances of a case, choose to hear and decide the legal issues outright.[45] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.[283] The principle of quantum meruit applies if lawyers are employed without a price agreed upon for their services, in which case they would be entitled to receive what they merit for their services, or as much as they have earned.[284] In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, one may consider factors such as the time spent and extent of services rendered; novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; importance of the subject matter; skill demanded; probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case; customary charges for similar services; amount involved in the controversy and the resulting benefits for the client; certainty of compensation; character of employment; and professional standing of the lawyer.[285] | |||||