This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The denial of a motion to dismiss generally cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari, as this remedy is designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[13] Neither can a denial of a motion to dismiss be the subject of an appeal which is available only after a judgment or order on the merits has been rendered.[14] Only when the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion can the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari be justified.[15] | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Apparent printout of a Facebook webpage of petitioner's daughter, Mey Bernadette Sabili[18] | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In Mitra v. Commission on Elections,[79] the declaration of Aborlan's punong barangay that petitioner resides in his barangay was taken to have the same meaning as domicile, inasmuch as the said declaration was made in the face of the Court's recognition that Mitra "might not have stayed in Aborlan nor in Palawan for most of 2008 and 2009 because his office and activities as a Representative were in Manila." | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We have held time and again that an order denying a Motion to Dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. The general rule, therefore, is that the denial of a Motion to Dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for Certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[15] However, we have likewise held that when the denial of the Motion to Dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of the extraordinary remedy of Certiorari may be justified. By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant: [S]uch capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and 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 by or to act all in contemplation of law.[16] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation,[11] this Court had occasion to rule that the issues raised in a motion to dismiss have to be determined in accordance with the evidence and facts presented, not on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and that the courts could not afford to dismiss a litigant's complaint on the basis of half-baked conclusions with no evidence to show for it. In emphasizing the need for a formal hearing, this Court held that the demand for a clear factual finding to justify the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be dispensed with.[12] To this end, Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court allows not only a hearing on the motion to dismiss, but also for the parties to submit their evidence on the questions of fact involved, which may be litigated extensively at the hearing or hearings on the motion.[13] During the said hearings, the parties are allowed to submit their respective evidence, and even rebut the opposing parties' evidence.[14] The hearings should provide the parties the forum for full presentation of their sides.[15] Moreover, from the trial court's perspective, the extent of such hearings would depend on its satisfaction that the ground in filing the motion to dismiss has been established or disestablished.[16] | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. As such, the general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[20] | |||||
|
2010-03-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court has stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence.[28] Once more, in Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation. v. Acuña,[29] the Court declared: Time and again we have ruled that in illegal dismissal cases like the present one, the onus of proving that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal. Thus, petitioners must not only rely on the weakness of respondents' evidence but must stand on the merits of their own defense. A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence for any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The determination of whether a foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines must be based on the facts of each case.[15] In the case of Antam Consolidated, Inc. v. CA,[16] in which a foreign corporation filed an action for collection of sum of money against petitioners therein for damages and loss sustained for the latter's failure to deliver coconut crude oil, the Court emphasized the importance of the element of continuity of commercial activities to constitute doing business in the Philippines. The Court held: In the case at bar, the transactions entered into by the respondent with the petitioners are not a series of commercial dealings which signify an intent on the part of the respondent to do business in the Philippines but constitute an isolated one which does not fall under the category of "doing business." The records show that the only reason why the respondent entered into the second and third transactions with the petitioners was because it wanted to recover the loss it sustained from the failure of the petitioners to deliver the crude coconut oil under the first transaction and in order to give the latter a chance to make good on their obligation. x x x | |||||
|
2010-01-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[42] The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and 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 by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[43] Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction or to violations of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.[44] It refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, there has been gross misapprehension of facts.[45] | |||||