file:cvpro_part_3_ic.htm
A satisfied Microsoft Office User
Normal
JOJO
3
12
2002-01-11T04:05:00Z
2002-01-11T04:06:00Z
2
424
2421
sc
20
4
2973
9.2720
120
(1) A tribunal, board or officer exercises
judicial or quasi-judicial function;
(2) It or s/he acts without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and
(3) There is no appeal nor plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary cause of law.
(1) Without jurisdiction – absence of a legal
power to determine a case.
(2) Excess of jurisdiction – the court has
jurisdiction but fails to comply with the conditions prescribed for its
exercise.411
(3) Grave abuse of discretion – judicial power is
exercised capriciously, arbitrarily or despotically due to passion or personal
hostility.412
3. Certiorari
is not a proper remedy if appeal is available or it is lost through the fault
of the petitioner,413 except:
(1) appeal is not a speedy and adequate remedy;414
(2) order is issued without or in excess of
jurisdiction;415
(3) in consideration of public welfare and for
the advancement of public policy;416
(4) order is a patent nullity;417
(5) to avoid future litigation;418
(6) to avoid a miscarriage of justice;419
(7) in furtherance of the broader interest of
justice and equities.420
4. Before certiorari can be availed of, petitioner
should first file a motion for reconsideration of the challenged order,
resolution or decision,421 except in the following cases:
(1) in the interest of justice and public welfare
and advancement of public policy;422
(2) order was issued without or in excess of
jurisdiction;423
(3) order is a patent nullity424 as when petitioner’s right to due
process was denied in the lower court425
or petitioner has been unlawfully deprived of his right to appeal;426
(4) when relief is extremely urgent, there is no
more need to wait for the resolution of a motion for reconsideration;427
(5) when the questions raised and passed upon in
the lower court are the same as those to be passed upon in the certiorari
case;428 and
(6) question is purely of law.429
5. Requirements Regarding the Extrinsic Sufficiency
of the Petition
(1) it must be verified;430
(2) accompanied by a certificate of non-forum
shopping;431
(3) accompanied with certified true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto;432
(4) proof of service pursuant to Rule 13, Section
1; and
(5) if not filed and served personally, then, it
should be accompanied by a written explanation why personal service was not
resorted to.433
Within sixty (60) days from notice of decision, resolution or order sought
to be assailed, or from the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
or new trial filed in due time after judgment.434
7.1 As a general rule, certiorari is not a
proper remedy to assail the order of the trial court denying a demurrer to
evidence in a civil case.435
Motion for reconsideration and, in case of denial, appeal, are the proper
remedy.
411 Leung Ben v.
O’Brien, 38 Phil. 182 [1918]; Tengco v. Jocson, 43 Phil. 715 [1922].
412 Gamboa v.
Cruz, No. L-56291, June 27, 1988, 162 SCRA 642; Filinvest Credit Corporation v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-65935, September 30, 1988, 166 SCRA 155.
413 Dillena v.
Court of Appeals, No. L-77660, July 28, 1988, 163 SCRA 630; Velasco Vda. De
Caldito v. Segundo, No. L-58187, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 573.
414 Saludes v.
Pajarillo, 78 Phil. 754 [1947].
415 Philippine
National Bank v. Florendo, G. R. No. 62082, February 26, 1992, 206 SCRA 582.
416 Jose v. Zulueta,
No. L-16598, May 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 574.
417 Marcelo v. De
Guzman, No. L-29077, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 657.
418 St. Peter
Memorial Park, Inc. v. Campos, Jr., No. L-38280, March 21, 1975, 63 SCRA 180.
419 Escudero v.
Dulay, No. L-60578, February 23, 1988, 158 SCRA 69.
420 Marahay v.
Melicor, G. R. No. 44980, February 6, 1990, 181 SCRA 811.
421 Butuan Bay
Wood Export Corporation v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45473, April 28, 1980, 97
SCRA 297.
422 Jose v.
Zulueta, supra, note 416.
423 Philippine
Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, No.
L-63318, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA 845.
424 Aquino v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 98108, September 3, 1993, 226
SCRA 76.
425 Bache and Co.
(Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, No. L-32409, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 823.
426 National
Electrification Administration v. Court of Appeals, No. L-32490, December 29,
1983, 126 SCRA 394.
427 Vda. de Sayman
v. Court of Appeals, No. L-25596, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 650.
428 Peroxide
Philippines Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 92813, July 31, 1991,
199 SCRA 882.
429 Central Bank
v. Cloribel, No. L-26971, April 11, 1972, 44 SCRA 307.
430 Rules of
Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
431 Ibid.
432 Ibid.
433 Rules of
Court, Rule 13, Sec. 11.
434 Rules of
Court, Rule 65, Sec. 4.
435 Asian
Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 76276, February 15,
1999, 303 SCRA 152.