Lawyerly

GR No. 184203

2014-11-26

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY

LEONEN, J.

On the other hand, certiorari is a special civil action filed to annul or modify a proceeding of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.[187] Certiorari, which in Latin means "to be more fully informed,"[188] was originally a remedy in the common law. This court discussed the history of the remedy of certiorari in Spouses Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:[189]

GR No. 160107

2014-10-22

SPS. JAIME SEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN v. BPI FAMILY BANK

BERSAMIN, J.

The foreclosure of a mortgage is but the necessary consequence of the non-payment of an obligation secured by the mortgage. Where the parties have stipulated in their agreement, mortgage contract and promissory note that the mortgagee is authorized to foreclose the mortgage upon the mortgagor's default, the mortgagee has a clear right to the foreclosure in case of the mortgagor's default. Thereby, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the mortgagor to prevent the foreclosure will be improper.[41] As such, the lower courts did not err in dismissing the injunction complaint of the petitioners.

GR No. 157633

2014-09-10

NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. MA. CONCEPCION M. DEL ROSARIO

BERSAMIN, J.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the CA properly ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by declaring Del Rosario's dismissal unjustified. Northwest as the petitioner for certiorari must demonstrate grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion, according to De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[15] "must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." Alas, Northwest did not show how the NLRC could have abused its discretion, let alone gravely, in ruling adversely against it.

GR No. 158583

2014-09-10

ROSALIE L. GARGOLES v. REYLITA S. DEL ROSARIO

BERSAMIN, J.

In view of the foregoing, the NLRC did not commit any abuse of discretion, least of all a grave one, in upholding the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal. Grave abuse of discretion, according to De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Corporation,[22] "must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."

GR No. 209287

2014-07-01

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

The ordinary nature and function of the writ of certiorari in our present system are aptly explained in Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:[30]

GR No. 157163

2014-06-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS

BERSAMIN, J.

In view of the foregoing, the CA grossly erred in not declaring that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the application of the respondents as the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. CEB-26468. The RTC apparently disregarded the aforecited well-known norms and guidelines governing the issuance of the writ of injunction. Thereby, the RTC acted capriciously and arbitrarily. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[52]

GR No. 156407

2014-01-15

THELMA M. ARANAS v. TERESITA V. MERCADO

BERSAMIN, J.

The determination of which properties should be excluded from or included in the inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of the RTC as an intestate court. In making its determination, the RTC acted with circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to include all properties in the possession of the administrator or were known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio rather than to exclude properties that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[39]

GR No. 188165

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

BERSAMIN, J.

In De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[80] the Court has expounded on the nature and reach of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, to wit:We remind that the writ of certiorari being a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character, whose purpose is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent an inferior court from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts have no power or authority in law to perform) is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop, and cannot be issued to correct every error committed by a lower court.

GR No. 157900

2013-07-22

ZUELLIG FREIGHT v. NLRC

BERSAMIN, J.

Indeed, in a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court or quasi-judicial body with jurisdiction over a case, petitioner carries the burden of proving that the court or quasi-judicial body committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.[14] Showing mere abuse of discretion is not enough, for it is necessary to demonstrate that the abuse of discretion was grave. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[15] Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the records and by the applicable laws and jurisprudence.

GR No. 161596

2013-02-20

ROBERTO BORDOMEO v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

In a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court with jurisdiction over a case, the petitioner carries the burden to prove that the respondent tribunal committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.[49] Showing mere abuse of discretion is not enough, for the abuse must be shown to be grave. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[50] Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the history of the dispute and borne out by the applicable laws and jurisprudence.

GR No. 188635

2013-01-29

BRENDA L. NAZARETH v. REYNALDO A. VILLAR

BERSAMIN, J.

Only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail its actions.[23] Section 1 of Rule 65,[24] Rules of Court, demands that the petitioner must show that, one, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and, two, there is neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding. Inasmuch as the sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner should establish that the COA gravely abused its discretion. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[25] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ.[26]

GR No. 188056

2013-01-08

DACUDAO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GONZALES

BERSAMIN, J.

The writ of certiorari is available only when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[7] "The sole office of the writ of certiorari," according to Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:[8]

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
On the other hand, certiorari is a special civil action filed to annul or modify a proceeding of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.[187] Certiorari, which in Latin means "to be more fully informed,"[188] was originally a remedy in the common law. This court discussed the history of the remedy of certiorari in Spouses Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:[189]
	GR No. 160107 2014-10-22	SPS. JAIME SEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN v. BPI FAMILY BANK BERSAMIN, J.
The foreclosure of a mortgage is but the necessary consequence of the non-payment of an obligation secured by the mortgage. Where the parties have stipulated in their agreement, mortgage contract and promissory note that the mortgagee is authorized to foreclose the mortgage upon the mortgagor's default, the mortgagee has a clear right to the foreclosure in case of the mortgagor's default. Thereby, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the mortgagor to prevent the foreclosure will be improper.[41] As such, the lower courts did not err in dismissing the injunction complaint of the petitioners.
	GR No. 157633 2014-09-10	NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. MA. CONCEPCION M. DEL ROSARIO BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances, therefore, the CA properly ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by declaring Del Rosario's dismissal unjustified. Northwest as the petitioner for certiorari must demonstrate grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion, according to De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[15] "must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." Alas, Northwest did not show how the NLRC could have abused its discretion, let alone gravely, in ruling adversely against it.
	GR No. 158583 2014-09-10	ROSALIE L. GARGOLES v. REYLITA S. DEL ROSARIO BERSAMIN, J.
In view of the foregoing, the NLRC did not commit any abuse of discretion, least of all a grave one, in upholding the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal. Grave abuse of discretion, according to De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Corporation,[22] "must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."
	GR No. 209287 2014-07-01	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
The ordinary nature and function of the writ of certiorari in our present system are aptly explained in Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:[30]
	GR No. 157163 2014-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JUDGE AGAPITO L. ANOSAS BERSAMIN, J.
In view of the foregoing, the CA grossly erred in not declaring that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the application of the respondents as the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. CEB-26468. The RTC apparently disregarded the aforecited well-known norms and guidelines governing the issuance of the writ of injunction. Thereby, the RTC acted capriciously and arbitrarily. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[52]
	GR No. 156407 2014-01-15	THELMA M. ARANAS v. TERESITA V. MERCADO BERSAMIN, J.
The determination of which properties should be excluded from or included in the inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of the RTC as an intestate court. In making its determination, the RTC acted with circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to include all properties in the possession of the administrator or were known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio rather than to exclude properties that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[39]
	GR No. 188165 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
In De los Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[80] the Court has expounded on the nature and reach of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, to wit:We remind that the writ of certiorari being a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character, whose purpose is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent an inferior court from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts have no power or authority in law to perform) is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop, and cannot be issued to correct every error committed by a lower court.
	GR No. 157900 2013-07-22	ZUELLIG FREIGHT v. NLRC BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, in a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court or quasi-judicial body with jurisdiction over a case, petitioner carries the burden of proving that the court or quasi-judicial body committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.[14] Showing mere abuse of discretion is not enough, for it is necessary to demonstrate that the abuse of discretion was grave. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[15] Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the records and by the applicable laws and jurisprudence.
	GR No. 161596 2013-02-20	ROBERTO BORDOMEO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
In a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court with jurisdiction over a case, the petitioner carries the burden to prove that the respondent tribunal committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.[49] Showing mere abuse of discretion is not enough, for the abuse must be shown to be grave. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[50] Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the history of the dispute and borne out by the applicable laws and jurisprudence.
	GR No. 188635 2013-01-29	BRENDA L. NAZARETH v. REYNALDO A. VILLAR BERSAMIN, J.
Only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail its actions.[23] Section 1 of Rule 65,[24] Rules of Court, demands that the petitioner must show that, one, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and, two, there is neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding. Inasmuch as the sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner should establish that the COA gravely abused its discretion. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[25] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ.[26]
	GR No. 188056 2013-01-08	DACUDAO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GONZALES BERSAMIN, J.
The writ of certiorari is available only when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[7] "The sole office of the writ of certiorari," according to Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company:[8]

SPS. HUMBERTO P. DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS v. METROPOLITAN BANK