Lawyerly

GR No. 168157

2015-08-19

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the petitioner must show that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in making its determination and in arriving at the conclusion reached. In short, the petitioner must establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which connotes the whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction;[30] the abuse 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 or hostility.[31] Obviously, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, having correctly resolved the question of probable cause, did not abuse their discretion, least of all gravely, in dismissing the charge against Atty. Cleofe.

GR No. 213847

2015-08-18

JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

BERSAMIN, J.

Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion To Fix Bail. Grave abuse of discretion, as the ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[50] The abuse 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 or hostility.[51]

GR No. 164974

2015-08-05

CHARLIE TE v. AUGUSTO V. BREVA

BERSAMIN, J.

With its dismissal of the petition for certiorari being proper and in accord with the pertinent rules of procedure, the CA did not abuse its discretion, least of all gravely. Grave abuse of discretion, as the ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[23] The abuse 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 or hostility.[24]

GR No. 202262

2015-07-08

JOSE C. GO v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

BERSAMIN, J.

The term grave abuse of discretion connoted whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as was equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[18] The abuse 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 was exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[19] In light of this understanding of the term grave abuse of discretion, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari because the petitioners did not show how the RTC could have been guilty of gravely abusing its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for allowing the execution of the properties designated as security for an obligation contracted since 1998.

GR No. 169005

2013-01-28

WINSTON F. GARCIA v. CA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[42] The supervisory jurisdiction of the court to issue a certiorari writ 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. In the absence of a showing that there is reason for the Court to annul the decision of the concerned tribunal or to substitute its own judgment, it is not the office of the Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the correctness of the assailed decision or resolution.[43]

GR No. 193261

2012-04-24

MEYNARDO SABILI v. COMELEC

SERENO, J.

1997 Voter Registration Record of petitioner[12]

GR No. 159941

2011-08-17

HEIRS OF SPS. TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA v. SPS. LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Given all the foregoing, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The term grave abuse of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[26] The abuse 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 or hostility.[27]

GR No. 160067

2010-11-17

NELSON IMPERIAL v. MARICEL M. JOSON

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]

GR No. 174697

2010-07-08

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

BRION, J.

Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer clothed with authority to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy.[27] Quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the action or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies given the authority to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action using discretion of a judicial nature.[28] Thus, in Philnabank Employees Association v. Estanislao, we did not grant a petition for certiorari against the Department Secretary who did not act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity but merely promulgated the questioned implementing rules under the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971, the applicable law in this cited case.[29]

GR No. 166356

2010-02-02

BENEDICTA M. SAMSON v. JUDGE GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG

CARPIO, J.

Even assuming that certiorari may lie, the Court still cannot grant the instant petition because the petitioners failed to show that public respondent, in issuing the assailed Orders, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As mentioned earlier, the RTC issued the assailed Order in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17, in relation to Section 1, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no showing that the RTC judge issued the Order in a despotic or arbitrary manner, or that she was motivated by passion or personal hostility against petitioners. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility,[22] and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[23] Such is wanting in this case.

GR No. 132540

2009-04-16

ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We must stress that the assailed RTC Orders are but resolutions on incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. The remedy against an interlocutory order is not to resort forthwith to Certiorari, but to continue with the case in due course; and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law,[18] incorporating in said appeal the ground for assailing the interlocutory Orders. Thus, ALECO acted precipitately in resorting to Certiorari to test the correctness of the RTC orders dated 17 October 1997, 12 November 1997 and 11 February 1998.

GR NO. 152921

2006-10-09

RUBEN S. SIA v. ERLINDA M. VILLANUEVA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The Court of Appeals correctly declared that petitioner pursued the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari may be availed of only if the lower court or tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[3] In Angara v. Fedman Development Corporation,[4] we explained that: Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board, or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right, or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. In the early case of Philippine Trust Co. v. Santamaria,[5] we ruled that after a final judgment has been rendered by the Supreme Court, or even by a trial court for that matter, it is the duty of the court to enforce the judgment according to its terms. In other words, where the judgment of an appellate court has become final and executory and is returned to the lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of execution. The Philippine Trust doctrine has been reaffirmed in Buenaventura v. Garcia and Garcia,[6] Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[7] and Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun.[8]

GR NO. 165606

2006-02-06

DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We rule that neither of these rulings could be a basis for a certiorari proceeding. The trial court, in so ruling, did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Not every error in proceeding, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, is abuse of discretion.[35] If at all there was any mistake in said decisions, such mistake can only be characterized as an error of judgment. A ruling on the admission of evidence, even if wrong, is not an abuse of discretion but simply an erroneous ruling.[36] As long as the trial court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged error committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgments, correctible by an appeal and not by a petition for certiorari.[37]

	GR No. 168157 2015-08-19	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the petitioner must show that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in making its determination and in arriving at the conclusion reached. In short, the petitioner must establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which connotes the whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction;[30] the abuse 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 or hostility.[31] Obviously, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, having correctly resolved the question of probable cause, did not abuse their discretion, least of all gravely, in dismissing the charge against Atty. Cleofe.
	GR No. 213847 2015-08-18	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion To Fix Bail. Grave abuse of discretion, as the ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[50] The abuse 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 or hostility.[51]
	GR No. 164974 2015-08-05	CHARLIE TE v. AUGUSTO V. BREVA BERSAMIN, J.
With its dismissal of the petition for certiorari being proper and in accord with the pertinent rules of procedure, the CA did not abuse its discretion, least of all gravely. Grave abuse of discretion, as the ground for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[23] The abuse 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 or hostility.[24]
	GR No. 202262 2015-07-08	JOSE C. GO v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS BERSAMIN, J.
The term grave abuse of discretion connoted whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as was equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[18] The abuse 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 was exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[19] In light of this understanding of the term grave abuse of discretion, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari because the petitioners did not show how the RTC could have been guilty of gravely abusing its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for allowing the execution of the properties designated as security for an obligation contracted since 1998.
	GR No. 169005 2013-01-28	WINSTON F. GARCIA v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[42] The supervisory jurisdiction of the court to issue a certiorari writ 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. In the absence of a showing that there is reason for the Court to annul the decision of the concerned tribunal or to substitute its own judgment, it is not the office of the Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the correctness of the assailed decision or resolution.[43]
	GR No. 193261 2012-04-24	MEYNARDO SABILI v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
1997 Voter Registration Record of petitioner[12]
	GR No. 159941 2011-08-17	HEIRS OF SPS. TEOFILO M. RETERTA AND ELISA RETERTA v. SPS. LORENZO MORES AND VIRGINIA LOPEZ BERSAMIN, J.
Given all the foregoing, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The term grave abuse of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction.[26] The abuse 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 or hostility.[27]
	GR No. 160067 2010-11-17	NELSON IMPERIAL v. MARICEL M. JOSON 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]
	GR No. 174697 2010-07-08	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION BRION, J.
Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer clothed with authority to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy.[27] Quasi-judicial function is a term that applies to the action or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies given the authority to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action using discretion of a judicial nature.[28] Thus, in Philnabank Employees Association v. Estanislao, we did not grant a petition for certiorari against the Department Secretary who did not act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity but merely promulgated the questioned implementing rules under the mandate of Republic Act No. 6971, the applicable law in this cited case.[29]
	GR No. 166356 2010-02-02	BENEDICTA M. SAMSON v. JUDGE GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG CARPIO, J.
Even assuming that certiorari may lie, the Court still cannot grant the instant petition because the petitioners failed to show that public respondent, in issuing the assailed Orders, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As mentioned earlier, the RTC issued the assailed Order in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17, in relation to Section 1, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no showing that the RTC judge issued the Order in a despotic or arbitrary manner, or that she was motivated by passion or personal hostility against petitioners. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility,[22] and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[23] Such is wanting in this case.
	GR No. 132540 2009-04-16	ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We must stress that the assailed RTC Orders are but resolutions on incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. The remedy against an interlocutory order is not to resort forthwith to Certiorari, but to continue with the case in due course; and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law,[18] incorporating in said appeal the ground for assailing the interlocutory Orders. Thus, ALECO acted precipitately in resorting to Certiorari to test the correctness of the RTC orders dated 17 October 1997, 12 November 1997 and 11 February 1998.
	GR NO. 152921 2006-10-09	RUBEN S. SIA v. ERLINDA M. VILLANUEVA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The Court of Appeals correctly declared that petitioner pursued the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari may be availed of only if the lower court or tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[3] In Angara v. Fedman Development Corporation,[4] we explained that: Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board, or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right, or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. In the early case of Philippine Trust Co. v. Santamaria,[5] we ruled that after a final judgment has been rendered by the Supreme Court, or even by a trial court for that matter, it is the duty of the court to enforce the judgment according to its terms. In other words, where the judgment of an appellate court has become final and executory and is returned to the lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of execution. The Philippine Trust doctrine has been reaffirmed in Buenaventura v. Garcia and Garcia,[6] Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[7] and Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun.[8]
	GR NO. 165606 2006-02-06	DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE CALLEJO, SR., J.
We rule that neither of these rulings could be a basis for a certiorari proceeding. The trial court, in so ruling, did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Not every error in proceeding, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, is abuse of discretion.[35] If at all there was any mistake in said decisions, such mistake can only be characterized as an error of judgment. A ruling on the admission of evidence, even if wrong, is not an abuse of discretion but simply an erroneous ruling.[36] As long as the trial court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged error committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgments, correctible by an appeal and not by a petition for certiorari.[37]

EDGARDO J. ANGARA v. FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION