Rule 65 petition for certiorari

Rule 65 petition for certiorari petitioner was unable to timely file the Motion for Reconsideration of such resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. That petitioner is now assailing the propriety of the NLRC decision in dismissing the motion and hereby raise pure questions of law, considering that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law- hence, this petition. That petitioner through its president had received via his secretary the assailed NLRC decision denying the motion for reconsideration on February 27,

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When 1. When: 1. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by: 1. The petition shall also: 1.

Rule 65 petition for certiorari

Supreme Court Decisions. US Supreme Court Decisions. March 3, Niceforo S. Agaton for respondent Union. Perez, Et Al. Jacala, Et Al. Error of judgment can be reviewed only by appeal Paringit v. Masakayan, L, July 31, ; Delos Santos v. Mapa, 46 Phil.

However, nothing more can be done about that dismissal of the appeal.

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari [1] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Esperanza P. SP No. Pablo Perlita , married to Timoteo Pablo Timoteo. Petitioner alleged that on September 22, , her friends introduced to her a certain Timoteo H. Pablo, Jr. Timoteo offered for sale the subject property to petitioner and her husband.

SP No. He prays that this Court certify "for review with prayer for preliminary injunction to stop the writ of possession [of] the property located at Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Bulacan [subject property] and after due hearing, let judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of the Honorable Regional Trial Court Branch 82, [City of Malolos, Bulacan,] and the Court of Appeals as the law requires with costs. According to petitioner Alfredo, the subject property is registered in his name and was constituted as a Family Home in accordance with the provisions of the Family Code. Josefino was religiously paying the installments on his mortgage obligation and had paid more than half thereof. Josefino, however, passed away. On the other hand, respondent E-PCI recounts that the subject property was formerly registered in the name of petitioner Alfredo.

Rule 65 petition for certiorari

The trial court's failure to comply with procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of discretion and may be the subject of a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The private complainant in the criminal case subsequently filed an Affidavit of Desistance 7 stating that he was no longer interested in pursuing his complaint against Cruz. The Motion for Reconsideration 13 filed by Francisco was likewise denied in an Order 14 dated April 6, The Court of Appeals anchored its dismissal on the ground that Cruz and Francisco should have filed an appeal, instead of a petition for certiorari , to question the denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond. Cruz and Francisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied in the Resolution 19 dated June 1, Hence, this Petition 20 was filed. Petitioners Cruz and Francisco insist that the filing of a petition for certiorari was proper since the Regional Trial Court's denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond amounted to grave abuse of discretion. They point out that under Rule , Section 22 21 of the Rules of Court, bail is deemed automatically cancelled upon the dismissal of the case regardless of whether the case was dismissed through acquittal or desistance. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, points out that while Rule , Section 22 calls for automatic cancellation, the cancellation is without prejudice to any liabilities on the bond.

Accuweather far rockaway

That there was no valid contract of sale executed between Perlita and petitioner is of no moment. Search inside document. In Spouses Ibias v. On the other hand, the Enriquez spouses should have moved to set aside the order of default and the judgment by default Sec. It may also defer the hearing of any motion or hear one motion in preference to others, when in its judgment such is necessary to settle an industrial dispute which disrupts industrial peace and economic order of the country. Essentially, she contended that the reconstituted title was obtained by the respondents by means of fraud and deceit. Untitled Document 7 pages. A remedy is said to be plain, speedy and adequate when it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. He alleged that he was not afforded due process because he was not given any notice in violation of the two-notice rule by the Labor Code and management should pay him amount equivalent to the number of years that he worked for the company which is ten years;. Bonifacio Global City Taguig, MM, Philippines after having been duly sworn to an oath in accordance with law, hereby depose and say: 1. AI-enhanced title. She further argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue a new title as the first owner's duplicate copy of TCT T was never lost, and in fact, is in her possession all along. When the petition filed: o relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as PRIVATE respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, o the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such PRIVATE respondents o to appear and defend, both o in his or their own behalf and o in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, o and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the PRIVATE respondents only, and o NOT against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents. Rule 45 Document 5 pages.

Tadeo-Matias vs. Bureau of Customs vs.

Hence, this petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. Court of Appeals and Linzag v. He alleged that he was not afforded due process because he was not given any notice in violation of the two-notice rule by the Labor Code and management should pay him amount equivalent to the number of years that he worked for the company which is ten years;. And the order continued: jgc:chanrobles. In Mandy Commodities, Inc. Basa Vs Enfrausa Document 5 pages. Uploaded by MaeJo. Similarly, in Spouses Paulino v. From the foregoing, it appears that for an order of reconstitution to be issued, it must be clearly shown that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed. The same ruling holds true in the case of Billote v. Order to comment. That petitioner is now assailing the propriety of the NLRC decision in dismissing the motion and hereby raise pure questions of law, considering that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law- hence, this petition;. If there was no loss or destruction as in the case at bar, there is actually nothing to reconstitute.