|
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Pettion for review
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor Case Digest
The petitioner Tomas Claudio filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65, dated April 2, 2002, well beyond the 15-day period counted from Feb. 21, 2002, when the petitioner received the copy of the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).
The private respondent Pedro Natividad averred that the proper remedy to assail the decision of the CA was to file a petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from receipt of notice of the CA resolution denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Was there merit to this contention?
Ruling: Yes.
We agree that the remedy of the aggrieved party from a decision or final resolution of the CA is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, on questions of facts or issues of law within 15 days from notice of the said resolution. Otherwise, the decision of the CA shall become final and executory.
The remedy under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal to this Court from the decision of the CA. It is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. A review is not a matter of right but is a matter of judicial discretion. The aggrieved party may, however, assail the decision of the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within 60 days from notice of the decision of the CA or its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the same.
This is based on the premise that in issuing the assailed decision and resolution, the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A remedy is considered plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effect of the judgment and the acts of the lower court. (Tomas Claudio Memorial College Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Pedro Natividad, G.R. 152568, Feb. 16, 2004 quoting National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, 318 Scra 255 (1999).
(August 6, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
