This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Although the Constitution concededly guarantees that "(a)ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies",[50] it is evident that petitioners' arguments in G.R. No. 160067 have more to do with the wisdom of the assailed rulings of the RTCs of Naga and Parañaque than said courts' jurisdiction to issue the same. Consistent with its function as a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction,[51] however, the rule is settled that errors of judgment involving the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision are beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[52] Not being intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling,[53] a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case.[54] As long as the trial court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged error committed in the exercise of its discretion will, therefore, amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgments, correctible by an appeal and not by a petition for certiorari.[55] | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In light of these legal realities, we hold that the public respondent prosecutors should have made a determination of probable cause in the complaint before them, instead of simply dismissing it for prematurity. Their failure to do so and the dismissal they ordered effectively constituted an evasion of a positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; they acted on the case in a manner outside the contemplation of law. This is grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of or in excess of jurisdiction warranting a reversal of the assailed resolution.[25] In the concrete context of this case, the public prosecutors effectively shied away from their duty to prosecute, a criminal violation of P.D. No. 957 as mandated by Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. 5180,[26] as amended,[27] otherwise known as the Law on Uniform Procedure of Preliminary Investigation. | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We would like to stress that petitioners questioned before the CA the April 2001 Order of the RTC via a special civil action for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. We agree with the CA's general conclusion that certiorari was not proper, as there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion. As correctly stated by the appellate court, and as this Court has repeatedly held, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.[37] It does not include correction of the trial court's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon.[38] It does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[39] | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[41] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Generally, interlocutory orders are neither appealable nor subject to certiorari proceedings.[22] Though interlocutory in character, an order denying a demurrer to evidence may be the subject of a certiorari proceeding, provided the petitioner can show that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion; and that appeal in due course is not plain, adequate or speedy under the circumstances.[23] It must be stressed that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court--the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[24] | |||||