[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
223 views2 pages

Court of Appeals Lacks Jurisdiction

Petitioner Valdez filed a case against Financiera Manila for collection of sum of money. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Valdez. The parties then entered into compromise agreements that were approved by the court. However, Valdez later sought to rescind the agreement. The trial court denied Financiera's motion for execution of the agreement but granted Valdez's motion. Financiera appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing grave abuse of discretion. The issue was whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction because Financiera failed to timely file an appeal and instead improperly filed a petition for certior

Uploaded by

Nikki Estores Gonzales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
223 views2 pages

Court of Appeals Lacks Jurisdiction

Petitioner Valdez filed a case against Financiera Manila for collection of sum of money. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Valdez. The parties then entered into compromise agreements that were approved by the court. However, Valdez later sought to rescind the agreement. The trial court denied Financiera's motion for execution of the agreement but granted Valdez's motion. Financiera appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing grave abuse of discretion. The issue was whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction because Financiera failed to timely file an appeal and instead improperly filed a petition for certior

Uploaded by

Nikki Estores Gonzales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VALDEZ

v.
FINANCIERA MANILA

G.R. No. 183387, September 29, 2009


PONENTE: PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner and his wife, Lydia D. Valdez, among others, filed a


Complaint for a sum of money against respondent Financiera Manila,
Inc. Thereafter, the RTC rendered its Decision finding respondent
Financiera liable to plaintiffs. An appeal was then filed with the CA,
which affirmed the award of actual damages and remanded the case
to the RTC for the determination of the award for moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. Subsequently,
Compromise Agreements were entered into among the parties. The
said Compromise Agreements were approved. A writ of execution
was issued. The plaintiffs however filed a motion for the rescission of
the Compromise Agreement on the ground that no payment was
expected from respondent Financiera. The motion was denied by the
court. Respondent Financiera filed an Urgent Motion for Execution
dated November 13, 2006 of the Compromise Agreement in Civil
Case No. Q-98-35546. Petitioner Valdez, on the other hand, filed a
motion for the execution. The RTC of Quezon City, Branch 227
denied respondent Financiera's urgent motion and granted petitioner
Valdez's motion for execution. Thereafter, respondent Financiera filed
its Motion for Reconsideration, which was eventually denied,
prompting it to file a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground
that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of or excess of jurisdiction. The CA denied the motion for
reconsideration of petitioner Valdez; hence, the latter now resorts to
the present petition and ascribes to the CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court of appeals has no jurisdiction over the
petition for certiorari filed by respondent.

RULING:
Considering that an appeal was still available as a remedy for the
assailed Orders of the RTC, the filing of the petition for certiorari was
an attempted substitute for an appeal. Necessarily, it must be noted
that the petition for certiorari was filed on August 28, 2007 when the
questioned RTC Orders had already attained finality. The Order
became final when respondent Financiera received the RTC Order of
June 18, 2007 denying the former’s motion for reconsideration on
June 29, 2007. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within the
reglementary period lasting until July 14, 2007, respondent filed a
petition for certiorari, way beyond the reglementary period.. Hence,
the CA had no jurisdiction to decide the said petition for certiorari.

You might also like