Scribd
Upload
67 views1 page

Magestrado V People Issue: Won Instant Petition For Certiorari Under Rule 65

The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari was not the correct remedy in this case. The case involved a criminal complaint of perjury filed against the petitioner. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari seeking to suspend the criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the order dismissing the certiorari petition was a final order that disposed of the case, as nothing more could be done in the trial court. It also found that there was no prejudicial question between the civil and criminal cases.

Uploaded by

Michael Geoffrey Uy
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
67 views1 page

Magestrado V People Issue: Won Instant Petition For Certiorari Under Rule 65

The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari was not the correct remedy in this case. The case involved a criminal complaint of perjury filed against the petitioner. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari seeking to suspend the criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the order dismissing the certiorari petition was a final order that disposed of the case, as nothing more could be done in the trial court. It also found that there was no prejudicial question between the civil and criminal cases.

Uploaded by

Michael Geoffrey Uy
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/ 1

Magestrado v People

ISSUE: WoN instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65


is the correct and appropriate remedy? (NO)

FACTS:
Private respondent Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal
complaint for perjury against petitioner with the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
    after the filing of petitionerfs counter-affidavit and the
appended pleadings, the OCP recommended the filing of
an information for perjury against petitioner
    Assistant City Prosecutor Josephine Z. Fernandez
filed information for perjury against petitioner with MeTC.

    RTC Judge Estrella T. Estrada committed grave


abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Certiorari in Civil
Case No. Q-99-39358, and in effect sustaining the denial
by MeTC-Branch 43 of petitionerfs motion to suspend
the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90721, as well as
his subsequent motion for reconsideration thereof
CA denied.

HELD: CA affirmed; MeTC QC directed to proceed with


the hearing and trial on the merits of Criminal Case

RATIO:

An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally


disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can
be done with it in the trial court
    the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower
court
        an interlocutory order does not dispose of the case
completely, but leaves something to be done as regards
the merits of the latter
    RTC's order dismissing petitionerfs Petition for
Certiorari in Civil Case finally disposes of the said case
and RTC can do nothing more with the case

there was no prejudicial question as both cases may


proceed independently; diff questions are being resolved
as mentioned

You might also like