Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL V. BAVIERA v. ESPERANZA PAGLINAWAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180064 2013-09-16	JOSE U. PUA v. CITIBANK PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In a Decision[25] dated May 21, 2007, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Orders and dismissed petitioners' complaint for violation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The CA agreed with respondent's contention that since the case would largely depend on the issue of whether or not the latter violated the provisions of the SRC, the matter is within the special competence or knowledge of the SEC. Citing the case of Baviera v. Paglinawan[26] (Baviera), the CA opined that all complaints involving violations of the SRC should be first filed before the SEC.[27]
	GR No. 164538 2010-08-09	METROPOLITAN BANK v. ROGELIO REYNADO DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial."[43] Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. By way of exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is, when he has exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law."[44] Tested against these guidelines, we find that this case falls under the exception rather than the general rule.
	GR No. 141888 2009-07-13	MELBAROSE R. SASOT v. AMADO YUSON CARPIO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. In determining whether the Investigating Prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion, it is expedient to know if the findings of fact of the prosecutor were reached in an arbitrary or despotic manner.[23]
	GR Nos. 172785-86 2009-06-18	CRUZVALE v. JOSE ARMANDO L. EDUQUE QUISUMBING, J.
It bears stressing that the determination of probable cause for the filing of an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice.[26] Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch.[27]
	GR No. 135808 2008-10-06	SECURITIES v. INTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the SEC investigation serves the same purpose and entails substantially similar duties as the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ, this process cannot simply be disregarded. In Baviera v. Paglinawan,[77] this Court enunciated that a criminal complaint is first filed with the SEC, which determines the existence of probable cause, before a preliminary investigation can be commenced by the DOJ. In the aforecited case, the complaint filed directly with the DOJ was dismissed on the ground that it should have been filed first with the SEC. Similarly, the offense was a violation of the Securities Regulations Code, wherein the procedure for criminal prosecution was reproduced from Section 45 of the Revised Securities Act. [78] This Court affirmed the dismissal, which it explained thus:The Court of Appeals held that under the above provision, a criminal complaint for violation of any law or rule administered by the SEC must first be filed with the latter. If the Commission finds that there is probable cause, then it should refer the case to the DOJ. Since petitioner failed to comply with the foregoing procedural requirement, the DOJ did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint in I.S. No. 2004-229.
	GR No. 135808 2008-10-06	SECURITIES v. INTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An investigation of the case by any other administrative or judicial body would likewise be impossible pending the injunctive writs issued by the Court of Appeals. Given the ruling of this Court in Baviera v. Paglinawan,[80] the DOJ itself could not have taken cognizance of the case and conducted its preliminary investigation without a prior determination of probable cause by the SEC. Thus, even presuming that the DOJ was not enjoined by the Court of Appeals from conducting a preliminary investigation, any preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ would have been a futile effort since the SEC had only started with its investigation when respondents themselves applied for and were granted an injunction by the Court of Appeals.