This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is clear that the CA promulgated the assailed decision in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to review and pass upon the DARAB 's adjudication by of the petitioner's appeal of the PARAD's ruling. As such, his only proper recourse from such decision of the CA was to further appeal to the Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[17] Despite his allegation of grave abuse of discretion against the CA, he could not come to the Court by special civil action for certiorari. The remedies of appeal and certiorari were mutually exclusive, for the special civil action for certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, is available only if there is no appeal, or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[18] In certiorari, only errors of jurisdiction are to be addressed by the higher court, such that a review of the facts and evidence is not done; but, in appeal, the superior court corrects errors of judgment, and in so doing reviews issues of fact and law to cure errors in the appreciation and evaluation of the evidence.[19] Based on such distinctions, certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. | |||||
|
2014-12-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court emphasizes that the present petition is one for certiorari filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Time and again, the Court has pointed out that the special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review. It should be established that the respondent court or tribunal acted in capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[26] Grave abuse of discretion, which needs to support petitions for certiorari, then has a specific meaning, to wit: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.[27] | |||||
|
2014-09-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The well-established rule is that the motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The filing of the motion for reconsideration before the resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford to the public respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.[31] | |||||
|
2014-07-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court finds that no special and important reasons exist to warrant a thorough review of the assailed CA Decision. Quite the contrary, the Court is satisfied with and can simply rely on the findings of the DARAB Urdaneta, DARAB Quezon City, and the CA as well as the very admissions of the petitioners themselves to the effect that respondents fulfilled all the requirements under the agrarian laws in order to become entitled to their EPs; that Felicisimo voluntarily surrendered and abandoned the subject property in favor of his creditors, who took over the land and tilled the same until 1987; that Felicisimo migrated to the U.S.A. and became a naturalized American citizen; that in 1991, respondents were illegally dispossessed of their landholdings through force and intimidation by the petitioners after Felicisimo returned from abroad; and that as between petitioners and respondents, the latter are legally entitled to the subject property. These identical findings are not only entitled to great respect, but even finality. For petitioners to question these identical findings is to raise a question of fact.[44] | |||||