Rule 65 petition for certiorari

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When 1. When: 1.

That 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, This petition is timely filed because it is still within the time frame allowed by law. Due to this charge, they were summarily dismissed by the company. 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;.

Rule 65 petition for certiorari

This is a petition for certiorari on appeal. The court dismissed the petition on the ground "that the special remedy of certiorari maybe resorted to only where ordinary appeal may not be adequate, which circumstance is certainly not present in the instant case. Since this appeal dealt with a question of law, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court. Petitioners-appellants, the spouses Florentino and Adelina Enriquez, are lessees of a residential house with a small store situated at Lawaan St. For failure of Enriquez to pay the monthly rentals from November to February , Mijares sent various communications, culminating in a letter demanding that Enriquez pay the back rentals and vacate the premises. The court required Enriquez to file an answer within the period specified; instead of firing an answer, he filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint and, later, he further filed an amended motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The municipal court denied both motions. Enriquez then filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim. In response, Mijares filed a motion to declare Enriquez in default, and the court granted it, ordering the reception ex-parte of Mijares' evidence. On the same day, Enriquez filed a motion for reconsideration, but the municipal court denied it. Enriquez claimed that the court acted without jurisdiction: in ordering the amendment of the complaint; in denying his motion to dismiss the amended complaint; and in declaring him in default. The court issued a restraining order enjoining the respondent municipal judge from proceeding with the hearing of the ejectment case and directing the respondents to main tain the status quo. The court also required Mijares to file his answer, and he did so.

Error of judgment can be reviewed only by appeal Paringit v. Carousel Previous, rule 65 petition for certiorari. The rule also provides that actions for certiorari may only be brought in case there is no adequate remedy available to the petitioner in the court below and against which the petition for certiorari is filed.

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. Respondent E-PCI foreclosed the mortgage on the subject property upon default in payment by spouses Josefino and Emma, and upon the expiration of the period of redemption, caused the consolidation and transfer of the title to the subject property in its name.

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. It adds that if the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' Motion to Release Cash Bond, the error is "perhaps.

Digi downdetector

Service and enforcement of order or judgment. Rule 38,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,50,65 Document 16 pages. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in a capricious, whimsical arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction when it ruled that the severance of the employment of the employees were not valid. We find that these three requisites are not present in the instant case. It has been held that whether the court decides the question wrongly is utterly immaterial to the question of its jurisdiction Estrada v. Santos - v. Paredes, one of the respondents in the instant case now before this Court. That erroneous dismissal of the appeal could have been assailed by means of certiorari in this Court. It is the stand of respondents that what can be appeared to this Court is not the decision of any judge of the CIR but the decision of the Court en banc as ruled in Broce, Et. In this case, petitioner alleges that the CA erred in failing to annul the Decision of the RTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Indubitably, the fact of loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate certificate of title is crucial in clothing the RTC with jurisdiction over the judicial reconstitution proceedings.

AIE]0, S.

Without awaiting the resolution of the CIR en banc of their motion for reconsideration of the order of respondent Judge Ansberto P. Complaint and Non-Forum Shopping Document 6 pages. Sample - Certiorari Rule RULE 65 Section 1. On August 15, , the CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment declaring that a petition under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court cannot be used to impugn the second owner's duplicate certificate of title which was issued in the reconstitution proceeding before the trial court for to do so would constitute a collateral attack upon the issued certificate of title which is sanctioned by Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. Paredes, one of the respondents in the instant case now before this Court. That petitioner through its president had received via his secretary the assailed NLRC decision denying the motion for reconsideration on February 27, In that case, the Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment not because the said petition was a wrong recourse but because the petitioners therein were not real parties-in-interest to dispute the reconstitution of the original and duplicate copy of the TCT in dispute. The exception to tills rule is conceded only "where public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictate, and the broader interests of justice so require, or where the orders complained of were found to be completely null and void, or that appeal was not considered the appropriate remedy, such as in appeals from orders of preliminary attachment or appointments of receiver. Rule 65 Document 9 pages.