Supreme Court Sets Strict Review Petition Criteria: Glaring Errors Only

The Supreme Court emphasized the stringent criteria for entertaining a review petition, highlighting that it should only be allowed in cases of glaring omissions, patent mistakes, or grave errors due to judicial fallibility. Mere repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes is insufficient. Compliance with rules and the necessity of counsel's certificate to prevent frivolous reviews wasting judicial time were underscored. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the finality of the earlier order and the need to conserve judicial time.

---

---

Issues involved: Review of judgment, criteria for entertaining review petition, compliance with rules of the game, judicial time conservation.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the seriousness of a review proceeding, stating that it should only be entertained in cases where a glaring omission, patent mistake, or grave error has occurred due to judicial fallibility. The Court highlighted that a mere repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are insufficient grounds for a review. The importance of compliance with these factors was underscored, with the rationale behind the insistence on counsel's certificate being to prevent frivolous reviews that waste judicial time. The Court expressed concern over the tendency for repeat performances with the review label as a passport, emphasizing the need to conserve judicial time for maximum use. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that the present stage was a review of an earlier order that had the normal feature of finality. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of the review petition.

---