New Frontier Sugar Corp. vs. RTC of Iloilo, GR 165001, Jan. 31, 2007Certiorariis 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 forcertiorarimay 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 BankG.R. No. 167434February 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.