This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As to petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, suffice to say that mandamus is similarly unavailing to petitioner for mandamus is employed to compel the performance of a ministerial, not a discretionary duty. In the performance of an official duty involving discretion, the corresponding official can only be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other, except where there is grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority.[30] | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Also, as the discretion to accept or reject bids and award contracts is of such wide latitude, courts will not interfere, unless it is apparent that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily, or used as a shield to a fraudulent award. The exercise of that discretion is a policy decision that necessitates prior inquiry, investigation, comparison, evaluation, and deliberation. This task can best be discharged by the concerned government agencies, not by the courts. Courts will not interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within those boundaries. Otherwise, they stray into the realm of policy decision-making.[24] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This rule is also practical. The work of the courts will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in regard to the complaints filed before it, in much the same manner that the courts would be swamped with numerous cases if they are compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint.[25] | |||||