Rule 65 petition for certiorari

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When 1.

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.

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.

Hirt Block Chapter 08 Revised Document 57 pages. In case of denial of that motion, they should have appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

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.

AIE]0, S. MATA, Petitioners,. Petitioners, for themselves and by undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully aver:. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny. Unfounded filing of complaints by the Government and the apprehension of people perceived to be critical of its actions are real. Emiita, SCRA , Yet on another and completely separate occasion, the Philippine News Agency q?

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.

Syncbank com amazon

Secuya V Selma Document 2 pages. Rating: 3 out of 5 stars. Geromo, Felix Louis T. Lim was entirely different and not even a part of the property covered by the reconstituted title. Section of PD [33] provides for the procedure in case of loss of an owner's duplicate certificate of title:. Tan, L, October 10, Business Permit Application - New Document 3 pages. Thus, notwithstanding the foregoing procedural lapse committed by petitioner, in the interest of justice and to prevent further prolonging the proceedings in this case, the Court resolves to give due course to her petition and rule on the merits thereof. That there was no valid contract of sale executed between Perlita and petitioner is of no moment. Nevertheless, We bear in mind that the acceptance of a petition for certiorari , as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. Jump to Page.

Tadeo-Matias vs. Bureau of Customs vs. Gallegos, G.

Edward King, GR No. The court ordered Enriquez and all persons under him to vacate the premises involved in the case, to pay plaintiffs the total amount of P1, The company prayed that the petition of the labor union be denied, and that the court order the lay-off of the laborers not necessary in the operation of the factory by confirming the discharge from the service of the strikers who did not return to work. We reviewed the titles presented by both parties in the proceedings below and arrived at the same conclusion as that of the Court of Appeals. A reconstituted title, like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby. Santos - v. Court of Appeals , [39] the Court reiterated the rule that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not actually lost or destroyed, but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void because the court that rendered the order of reconstitution had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Accordingly, petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in this Court. 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. What is Scribd? The incurring by the can company of business losses was the injury that the Supreme Court sought to remedy when it decided that the issue of the legality of the strike be heard first; and 5 the most significant difference lies in the fact that in the Philippine Can case, the CIR ordered the strikers to return to work before deciding the legality of the strike; in the case at bar, the strikers had already returned to work by virtue of the Memorandum Agreement executed by the parties and confirmed by the Court. Bruce Davies. Neither can it be said that the respondent Judge is guilty of positive evasion of duty in not giving preference to the issue of the legality of the strike. Assuming that the crew members had been disembarked, the hearing of the motions of respondent would not lead to a return to work order before the legality of the strike is settled because the questioned order expressly stated that the court will proceed to hear "such other motions where the right to return to work is not in issue. NLRC Document 4 pages.