This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-02-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| x x x By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. For certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions.[69] | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| x x x By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. For certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions.[34] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Considering the foregoing, we rule that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. For certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions.[32] We do not find here a capricious, whimsical and arbitrary exercise of power by the Judge or by the Court of Appeals questioning the act of the lower court. | |||||