This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Statutory construction has it that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any attempt at interpretation.[26] Since Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of its IRR do not mention parking fees, then simply, said provisions do not regulate the collection of the same. The RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 1158 of the New Civil Code, which states: Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book. (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The conduct of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. The Court may not be compelled to pass upon the correctness of the exercise of the public prosecutor's function unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or manifest error in his findings.[29] Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[30] The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must have been so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[31] | |||||
|
2008-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Considering that the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond question, the subsequent warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure, were permissible. The search, clearly being incident to a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity. Thus, contrary to accused-appellant's contention, the contraband seized from him, having been obtained as a result of the buy-bust operation to which the defense failed to impute any irregularity, was correctly admitted in evidence. Noteworthy is the fact that prior to the dispatch of the entrapment team, a pre-operation report[18] was made bearing Control No. 24-SDEU-02 dated 24 August 2005. The pre-operation report stated that an Anti-Narcotic Operation was to be conducted at Barangay Sta. Lucia in Novaliches, Quezon City, and indicated the police officers involved, including the vehicles to be used. This only bolsters the testimony of PO2 Herrera and PO1 Riparip as to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2007-09-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| g. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transactionmanifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officerprofited or will profit thereby.[16] Grave abuse is defined as: ... such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officerconcerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse ofdiscretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive dutyor a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all incontemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despoticmanner by reason of passion or hostility.[17] The Ombudsman explained his reasons for dismissing the complaint: There is no evidence on record to prove that the loan was granted to PTPIat the behest, command or urging by previous government officials. Asappearing from its Corporate Profile, PTPI is a company organized onAugust 9, 1974 to take over the properties acquired by DBP from Fil-EasternWood Industries, Inc. (FEWI). The foreign currency loan of US $13.5million will be used to purchase brand new sawmill and veneering plant andadditional logging equipment since the old equipment were found to beobsolete.Although at the inception or at the time the loan was applied, its paid-upcapital amounted to P25,000.00 only, DBP required, under BoardResolution No. 2415, that prior to the issuance of letter of guarantee andexecution of deed of sale, in order to cover the pre-operating expenses, PTPIshall first increase its paid-up capital from P25,000.00 to P1.0 million. Thetraditional equity requirement equivalent to 25% of investment was waived inview of the joint and several signature of Macmillan Jardine and the guaranteeof Macmillan Bloedel and Jardine Matheson. In addition, PTPI shouldalso comply with DBP's requirement that the 80% collateral ratio ismaintained.Moreover, the loan granted to PTPI was not undercollateralized. Based onthe evidence on record, the financial accommodation was secured by theassets to be acquired; the forest concession and the joint and several signatureof Macmillan Jardine. In fact, DBP Board of Governors Chairman LeonidesS. Virata stated in his Memorandum to then President Ferdinand E. Marcos,that "the guarantee being requested will be more than the value of the assetssince the working capital requirement of about US $1.5 million and pre-operating expenses of another US $350 million will be funded out of the US$14 million."[18] Under Sections 12 and 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and RA 6770 (TheOmbudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecuteany act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omissionappears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.[19] It has been the consistent ruling of the Court not to interfere withthe Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers as long as hisrulings are supported by substantial evidence.[20] Envisioned as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity ofpublic service, he has wide latitude in exercising his powers and is free fromintervention from the three branches of government. This is to ensure that his Office isinsulated from any outside pressure and improper influence.[21] | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| This rule of non-interference is, however, far from absolute. Case law has it that the Court will intervene upon proof of commission of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.[31] In other words, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion, in which case the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.[32] Accordingly, where grave abuse of discretion taints the Ombudsman's finding as to the existence of probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[33] In Cabahug v. People,[34] the Court, citing Brocka v. Enrile,[35] enumerated the circumstances where the courts may interfere with the investigatory power of fiscals and the Ombudsman and thus stay or altogether restrain criminal prosecutions. Among these are:(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.[42] The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[43] | |||||
|
2005-11-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[36] The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must have been so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[37] | |||||