Thursday, August 28, 2014

INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED:

   1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;  2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust;  3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;  4)  it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. (GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL:

   The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record (FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET AL., G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)

Friday, August 22, 2014

THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:

   To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule, to wit: 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void; 4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are present in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent not having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case against petitioners, the dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS vs. ORDA, G.R. No. 189402, May 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:

  The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.  Clearly, the amount involved P13, 300.00 assessed value of the subject property as declared by respondents, is immaterial for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction.  All cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. (Sec. 22 of B.P. 129; Federica M. Serrano vs. Spouses Anselmo and Carmelita Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, November 10, 2006, Tinga, J.)

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.

     The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).