The Petition. The petition shall be to the following effect and shall preferably be worded as follows: “The undersigned requests that the present international application be processed according to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.”
The Petition. The petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari that challenged the RTC ruling ordering the payment of attorney’s fees. He maintains his argument that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion because: (1) it granted Atty. Xxxxxxx’s claim for attorney’s fees despite lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees; (2) it granted the claim for attorney’s fees without requiring a full- blown trial and without considering his advance payments; and (3) it issued the writ of execution before the lapse of the reglementary period. The petitioner also points out that the CA nullified the RTC’s release order in CA-G.R. SP No. 108734. In his Comment dated September 8, 2010, Atty. Xxxxxxx adopted the CA’s position in its October 16, 2009 Decision. OUR RULING We observe that the petitioner used the wrong remedy to challenge the CA’s decision and resolution. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. A special civil action for certiorari is a remedy of last resort, available only to raise jurisdictional issues when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy under the law.
The Petition. Petitioner came directly to this Court raising the primordial legal issue of whether or not a court can take cognizance of a compulsory counterclaim despite the fact that the corresponding complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The present petition was de-consolidated from seven other petitions involving respondents and their transactions with Home Development Mutual Fund, as well as the pending criminal complaints arising therefrom.28
The Petition. XXXXX explains that ocean common carriers, with the exception of controlled carriers, are permitted to reduce their rates effective immediately upon filing.2 Only controlled carriers are subject to the 30-day waiting period for reductions in tariff rates, as set forth in section 9(c).3 1 Section 9(c) states, in relevant part: ‘‘Notwithstanding section 8(d) of this Act and except for service contracts, the rates, charges, classifications, rules, or regulations of controlled carriers may not, without special permission of the Commission, become effective sooner than the 30th day after the date of filing with the Commission.’’ 46 U.S.C. app. 1708(c). 2 Section 8(d) of the Shipping Act of 1984 On March 27, 1998, the Commission granted COSCO a limited exemption from the 30-day waiting requirement of section 9(c), allowing COSCO to decrease its tariff rates to levels which would meet or exceed those of its competitors with no waiting period.
The Petition. China Shipping explains that ocean common carriers, with the exception of controlled carriers, are permitted to reduce their rates effective immediately upon filing.2 Only controlled carriers are subject to the 30-day waiting period for reductions in tariff rates, as set forth in section 9(c).3 competitors with no waiting period.
The Petition. Its motion for reconsideration denied, the company appeals to this Court to set aside the CA’s dispositions, raising the very same issue it brought to the appellate court — whether the cash conversion of the gasoline 8 Id. at 86-87.
