This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Certiorari lies where a court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute want of jurisdiction. There is excess of jurisdiction where the court has jurisdiction but has transcended the same or acted without any statutory authority. (Leung Ben vs. O'Brien, 38 Phil., 182; Salvador Campos y Cia vs. Del Rosario, 41 Phil., 45.) Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Abad Santos vs. Province of Tarlac, 38 Off. Gaz., 830), or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 38 Off. Gaz., 62.)[62] Since there is sufficient legal basis for the Makati City RTC to issue its Order dated 31 August 2001 granting the ex parte petition of CBC and ordering the issuance in the latter's favor of a writ of possession over Unit No. 402, it could not be said that the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari to annul its said Order. Accordingly, no grave abuse of discretion can also be attributed to the RTC Branch Clerk of Court and Sheriff who issued, respectively, the Writ of Possession dated 3 September 2001 and the Notices to Vacate dated 17 October 2001 and 22 October 2001, since they were only acting in accordance with and in execution of a valid order of the Makati City RTC. | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| There is grave abuse of discretion where power is exercised in arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to act at all in contemplation of law.[27] No such conduct can be imputed on public respondent. Public respondent disposed of petitioner's complaint consistent with applicable law. | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In sum, the Court holds that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution pending appeal of the trial court's decision. Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility. The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[33] This does not obtain in the present case. | |||||