Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 186 views

    Chua v. People Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Calugan
    The petitioner took out a loan and issued checks that were dishonored. The petitioner was charged with violation of BP22 in the MeTC and found guilty. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the RTC challenging the MeTC decision, which was denied. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC before seeking other remedies, as a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chua v. People Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Calugan
    186 views1 page
    The petitioner took out a loan and issued checks that were dishonored. The petitioner was charged with violation of BP22 in the MeTC and found guilty. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the RTC challenging the MeTC decision, which was denied. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC before seeking other remedies, as a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner took out a loan and issued checks that were dishonored. The petitioner was charged with violation of BP22 in the MeTC and found guilty. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the RTC challenging the MeTC decision, which was denied. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC before seeking other remedies, as a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    186 views1 page

    Chua v. People Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Calugan
    The petitioner took out a loan and issued checks that were dishonored. The petitioner was charged with violation of BP22 in the MeTC and found guilty. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the RTC challenging the MeTC decision, which was denied. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC before seeking other remedies, as a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Chua v. People.

    G.R. No. 195248. Nov. 22, 2017.


    Martires, J.
    Facts:
    Petitioner took out a loan from the private respondent and secured the loan by issuing 4
    checks worth Php6,100,000. However, the checks were dishonored for being drawn against a
    closed account. Private Respondent personally delivered a demand letter to the petitioner which
    the petitioner’s secretary accepted.
    Private respondent charged petitioner of violation of 4 counts of BP22 in the MeTC. The
    court found the petitioner guilty. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the RTC
    assailing the decision of the MeTC and its presiding judge. RTC denied petitioner’s petition.
    Unconvinced, petitioner move for reconsideration which the RTC also denied. Hence, the
    petition in the SC.
    Issue: Did the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of prior motion for
    reconsideration before seeking other remedies?
    Ruling:
    Yes, petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of a prior motion for
    reconsideration. As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the availment
    of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
    The filing of a motion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to
    afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it
    by way of reexamination of the legal aspects.

    You might also like