Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 193058 2015-07-08	EDGAR C. NUQUE v. FIDEL AQUINO AND SPS. ALEJANDRO AND ERLINDA BABINA PERALTA, J.
At the outset, the Court agrees with petitioner's contention that the RTC Order denying his motion for the issuance of a writ of possession is in the nature of a final order, as it left nothing else to be resolved thereafter. Proceeding from this premise, petitioner's proper remedy was, thus, to appeal the RTC Order. It is settled that the proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal.[11] This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution.[12] The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is the unavailability of appeal.[13] Thus, it was wrong for petitioner to immediately resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari when he could have appealed the assailed RTC Order. While it is true that the availability of an appeal does not foreclose recourse to a special civil action of certiorari in cases where appeal is not adequate, equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient,[14] petitioner failed to demonstrate that these instances are present in the instant case.
	GR No. 203372 2015-06-16	ATTY. CHELOY E. VELICARIA- GARAFIL v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT CARPIO, J.
Notably, not even a hint of explanation accompanied this tardy appeal.[62] I am thus forced to conclude that the petition was filed under Rule 65 with the intent to make it a substitute for a Rule 45 appeal that had been lost for lapse of the period to file an appeal. A special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a last remedy allowed under strict requirements that Rosquita/Villanueva failed to observe.[63] To reiterate, the Court cannot allow a petition for certiorari to prosper when a party could appeal the judgment, but instead used a petition for certiorari in lieu of his appeal.[64]
	GR No. 204757 2015-03-17	ATTY. JANET D. NACION v. COA REYES, J.
Thus, the Court emphasized in Dycoco v. Court of Appeals[21] that "[a]n act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a 'capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.'"[22]
	GR No. 188364 2015-02-11	K & G MINING CORPORATION v. ACOJE MINING COMPANY REYES, J.
The attempt to resuscitate the lost appeal by filing a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari was likewise ineffective. The special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. It lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. "Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence."[63]
	GR No. 146376 2014-04-23	RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
"Grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined and not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one's purpose.[45] The Court gave the following comprehensive definition of said term in Yu v. Reyes-Carpio[46]: The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x. (Citations omitted.)