This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33] This is so because "grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined and not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one's purpose. In this connection, Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio[34] is instructive:The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or 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 to 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." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[31] This is so because "grave abuse of discretion" is well- defined and not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one's purpose. In this connection, Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio[32] is instructive:The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or 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 to 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." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-07-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, we proceed to the contention of petitioners against the RTC's dismissal of their Rule 65 Petition. In this regard, we stress that it is basic in our jurisdiction that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a mode of appeal.[14] The remedy, which is narrow in scope,[15] only corrects errors of jurisdiction.[16] Thus, if the issue involves an error of judgment, the error is correctible by an appeal via a Rule 45 petition, and not by a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[17] | |||||
|
2010-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[21] In this case, petitioner had the remedy of appeal, and it was the speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, a special civil action for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal that the petitioner has already lost. Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lost appeal.[22] Certiorari will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[23] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that certiorari may be resorted to when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, in Abedes v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Court held that: x x x for a petition for certiorari or prohibition to be granted, it must set out and demonstrate, plainly and distinctly, all the facts essential to establish a right to a writ. The petitioner must allege in his petition and has the burden of establishing facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate and that (a) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and, (c) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. These matters must be threshed out and shown by petitioner.[11] | |||||