Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 154117 2009-10-02	ERNESTO FRANCISCO v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court had already provided this remedy in Nava v. Commission on Audit,[119] wherein we held: The remedy availed of by petitioner is erroneous. Instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner filed with this Court the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770.
	GR Nos. 150353-54 2004-07-27	ANTONIO BALAY MATURAN v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In filing this petition for review, the petitioner relied on Section 14[10] of Rep. Act No. 6770.[11] But such reliance on Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6770 is misplaced, in view of our ruling in Nava v. Commission on Audit[12] that the right to appeal is not granted to parties aggrieved by Orders and Decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases, as such right is granted only from Orders or Decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. Thus, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only Judgments or Final Orders or Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court and other courts, whenever authorized by law, may be the subject of an appeal by certiorari to this Court. It does not include Resolutions of the Ombudsman on preliminary investigations in criminal cases, pursuant to Nava.
	GR No. 132120 2003-02-10	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PANGANIBAN, J.
More categorical was our ruling in Nava v. Commission on Audit,[37] in which we held:"An aggrieved party is not left without any recourse. Where the findings of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause [are] tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court."[38] Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.[39] It refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts.[40] The present Petition is one such exception, involving serious allegations of multimillion-dollar bribes and unlawful commissions.