This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| We clarify, however, that this remedy of appeal is different from the remedy provided in Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.[64] An error of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of discretion. Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal while those of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari.[65] In 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[66] we explained that Act No. 3135 finds no application after the lapse of the redemption period, and the remedy of a debtor to contest the possession of the property is a separate action, and not the appeal provided for in Section 8 of the Act. We explained:In a number of cases, the Court declared that Section 8 of Act No. 3135 is the available remedy to set aside a writ of possession, without considering whether the writ involved in each of these cases was issued during or after the lapse of the redemption period. Upon revaluation, we find it necessary to make a distinction and clarify when the remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 may be availed of. | |||||
|
2015-07-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari is made. This is to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[29] An omission to comply with this procedural requirement justifies a denial of the writ of certiorari applied for.[30] | |||||