Rule 65 petition for certiorari

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, rule 65 petition for certiorari 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.

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. 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. While the petition for certiorari was pending in the court of first instance, the municipal court rendered a decision in the ejectment case in favor of Mijares.

Close suggestions Search Search. Limthe Court noted that both parties raised issues of ownership and spuriousness of their respective titles. Without costs.

Supreme Court Decisions. US Supreme Court Decisions. March 3, Niceforo S. Agaton for respondent Union.

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.

Rule 65 petition for certiorari

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? NA reported that a certain Baltasar Saldo, of Sto. Angel, Dumalag, Capiz, was apprehended on mere suspicion that he was an NPA leader, but which tuned out to be one of mistaken identity.

Chaise haute ikea antilop

Masakayan, L, July 31, ; Delos Santos v. Enriquez then filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim. List of National Parks of India Document 5 pages. It is a well-settled doctrine that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Antonio, Actg. Leynes v. Illegal Strike Position Paper Document 7 pages. Carousel Next. A perusal of the questioned order is sufficient to show its basis. Jose R. Prefatorily, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of appeal when she filed before the Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the August 15, Decision and November 14, Resolution of the CA. It is so ordered. Small Claims Document 66 pages. Neither did respondents Perlita and Mary in any way challenge the genuineness and authenticity of the first owner's duplicate copy of TCT T submitted by petitioner. Procedure is the means whereby the court reaches out to restore rights and remedy wrongs, and includes every step which may be taken from the beginning to the end of a case 72 C.

RULE

That petitioner was unable to timely file the Motion for Reconsideration of such resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. Flag for inappropriate content. It cannot be said in the instant case that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion when he issued the questioned order of July 19, Jump to Page. Is this content inappropriate? Moreover, the petition for annulment of judgment she filed before the CA is not an attack upon TCT T, the main purpose of which is the annulment of the August 28, Decision of the RTC of Laoag City granting the reconstitution of TCT T, despite the fact that the first owner's duplicate copy thereof was never lost. Did you find this document useful? Essentially, she contended that the reconstituted title was obtained by the respondents by means of fraud and deceit. Harper Document 29 pages. Petition for certiorari. Elements of Greek Tragedy Document 21 pages.