This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-03-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| As often repeated by this Court, for the special civil action of certiorari to lie, it must be shown that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding.[64] The sole purpose of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. [65] A special civil action of certiorari does not include correction of public respondent's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon.[66] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Castro's infrequent visit to the clinical laboratory barely qualifies as an effective administrative supervision and control over the activities in the laboratory. "Supervision and control" means the authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, revise or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units.[27] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The remedy of certiorari is limited to acts of any tribunal or board exercising judicial functions without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[9] It must be based on jurisdictional grounds like want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion; otherwise, any error committed by it will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be questioned only on ordinary appeal.[10] | |||||
|
2004-10-05 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The allegation of the complainant that respondent justices of the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the labor arbiter's decision (which was unfavorable to him) must likewise fail. Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. As long as the court has jurisdiction, any error committed by the judge in the exercise of his judicial prerogatives will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal.[8] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Perusal of these petitions reveals that they are primarily anchored on Rule 65, Section 1[8] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In a special civil action of certiorari the only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[9] Yet nowhere in these petitions is there any allegation that the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A special civil action for certiorari will prosper only if a grave abuse of discretion is manifested.[10] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
BELLOSILLO , J. |
||||
| and that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding.[3] The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include correction of public respondent's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon.[4] The petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as long as the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected | |||||
|
2001-09-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the Solicitor General that the Ombudsman may not pass upon errors of the prosecutor's office intrinsic to the resolution itself of the case as that function pertains to the power of review of the Secretary of Justice.[22] | |||||
|
2000-10-25 |
PANGANIBAN, ACTING CJ. |
||||
| courts of justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case. However, we are not amiss to reiterate that the principal of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. This doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is a violation of due process, (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question, (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned, (5) when there is irreparable injury, (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the president bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter, (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim, (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings, (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention."[60] The administrative authorities must be given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.[61] Only after administrative remedies are exhausted may judicial recourse be allowed.[62] This case does not fall under any of the exceptions and indeed, as heretofore stated, the exceptions do not apply to an election case within the jurisdiction of the Comelec in Division. | |||||