Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SERENA T. BACELONIA v. CA AND SPS. VICTORINO S. BOLOS

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 177795 2009-06-19	LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Petition was confusingly denominated as a "Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended." Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court governs petitions for review on certiorari, while Rule 65 of the same covers petitions for ceritorari. These are two distinct remedies. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is generally limited only to questions of law or errors of judgment. On the other hand, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of to correct errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[28] Considering that the instant Petition (1) raises supposed errors of judgment committed by the RTC; (2) does not contain any categorical assertion of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC which rendered the assailed judgment; and (3) states that it is a Petition under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court shall treat the present Petition as a Petition for Review. Counsel for petitioners, however, is cautioned to be more circumspect in properly identifying the remedy his clients are availing themselves of so as to avoid confusion.
	GR NO. 165606 2006-02-06	DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, 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,[30] not errors of judgment.[31] Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[32] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33] The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of 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.[34]