New Frontier Sugar Corp. vs.

RTC of Iloilo, GR
165001, Jan. 31, 2007
Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It is an original and
independent action that was not part of the trial that
had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order
complained of. More importantly, sine the issue is
jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
directed against an interlocutory order of the lower
court prior to an appeal from the judgment.

Bugarin vs Palisoc (2005)

FACTS: Palisoc filed ejectment case against Bugarin in
the MeTC. Palisoc won. Bugarin appealed to RTC. RTC
affirmed MeTC. Bugarin filed MR which was also denied
by RTC. Decision was received on March 12. Writ of
execution pending appeal was issued. Bugarin filed
petition for Certiorari and prohibition before the CA on
April 10 contending that RTC committed GADLEJ in
affirming MeTC decision and insisted that MeTC had no
jurisdiction over the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether Certiorari will lie in this case.
HELD: NO. Once the RTC decides on the appeal, such
decision is immediately executory, without prejudice to
an appeal, via a petition for review, before the Court of
Appeals or Supreme Court. However, Bugarin failed
to file a petition for review.
Bugarin received on March 12, 2003 the RTC decision
denying their MR. They had until March 27, 2003 to file
a petition for review before the CA. Instead, they
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on
April 10, 2003. Bugarins petition for certiorari before
the CA was filed as a substitute for the lost remedy of
appeal.
Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute
for an appeal where the latter remedy is
available but was lost through fault or
negligence. Thus, the filing of the petition for
certiorari did not prevent the RTC decision from
becoming final and executory.
Doctrine: Compensation, be it legal or conventional,
requires confluence in the parties of the characters of
mutual debtors and creditors, although their rights as
such creditors or their obligations as such debtors
need not spring from one and the same contract or
transaction.

Nisce vs Equitable PCI Bank

G.R. No. 167434
February 19, 2007
Facts: Spouses Ramon and Natividad Nisce contracted
loans evidenced by promissory notes with herein
respondent Equitable PCI Bank, Inc secured by a real
mortgage on the formers parcel of land. Having
defaulted, respondent as creditor-mortgagee filed a
petition for extrajudicial foreclosure. Petitioners
alleged, among others, that the bank should have
compensated their debt with their dollar account which
they maintain with PCI Capital Asia Ltd. (Hong Kong), a
subsidiary of Equitable.The Bank, for its part, contends
that although the spouses debt was restructured, they
nevertheless failed to pay. Moreover, it alleged that
there cannot be legal compensation because PCI
Capital had a separate and distinct personality from
the PCIB, and a claim against the former cannot be
made against the latter.
Issue: Whether or not legal compensation may operate
to extinguish the petitioners obligation?
Ruling: Admittedly, PCI Capital is a subsidiary of
respondent Bank. Even then, PCI Capital [PCI Express
Padala (HK) Ltd.] has an independent and separate
juridical personality from that of the respondent Bank,
its parent company; hence, any claim against the
subsidiary is not a claim against the parent company
and vice versa.On hindsight, petitioners could have
spared themselves the expenses and tribulation of a
litigation had they just withdrawn their deposit from
the PCI Capital and remitted the same to respondent.
However, petitioner insisted on their contention of
setoff.