This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that petitioners' resort of certiorari is proper, the Petition must still be dismissed for their failure to show that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. "Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so 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 or hostility."[20] | |||||
|
2014-03-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.[12] This is the controlling doctrine as enunciated by this Court in previous cases, among which is a case involving herein private respondent.[13] | |||||