Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SILVINO A. LIGERALDE v. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 159594 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances, the report and court testimony by Dr. Reyes did not present the gravity and incurability of Catalina's psychological incapacity. There was, to start with, no evidence showing the root cause of her alleged borderline personality disorder and that such disorder had existed prior to her marriage. We have repeatedly pronounced that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, with its incapacitating nature fully explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.[29]
	GR No. 180245 2012-07-04	PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO. v. TAKENAKA CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The Court does not see any reason to overturn the CA's finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Set the Motion to Dismiss for Hearing. The established definition of grave abuse of discretion was reiterated in Ligeralde v. Patalinghug[5] in this wise: x x x By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a 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. In sum, for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power.[6] (Emphases supplied)
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
The petitioners allege, too, that we should act because Congress acted with grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA No. 10153. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is 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 the law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[90]
	GR No. 175473 2011-01-31	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. MARIA THERESA V. MENDOZA-ARCEGA PERALTA, J.
In Ligeralde v. Patalinghug,[11] the Court reiterated the established definition of grave abuse of discretion, to wit: x x x By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a 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. In sum, for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power.[12]