This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-11-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In any case, even if the Petition is one for the special civil action of certiorari, this Court has the discretion to treat a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. This is allowed if (1) the Petition is filed within the reglementary period for filing a Petition for review; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[48] When this Court exercises this discretion, there is no need to comply with the requirements provided for in Rule 65. | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| SCP claims that respondent insurers availed of the improper remedy when they filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 43. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred when it did not dismiss respondent insurers' petition, applying China Banking Corporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation.[13] | |||||
|
2012-07-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In China Banking Corporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation,[35] this Court declared that Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation can no longer be rehabilitated given its patent insolvency that appeared irremediable because of the unfounded projections on profitability: The RTC found CEPRI to be in the state of insolvency which precludes it from being entitled to rehabilitation. The findings of fact of the RTC must be given respect as it is clear and categorical in ruling that CEPRI is not merely in the state of illiquidity, but in an apparent state of insolvency. There is nothing more detailed than the contents of the said Order, which reads, in part: | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The special civil action for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[32] | |||||