Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-13-2361 2016-02-02	OCA v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ PER CURIAM
The records also showed that on October 18, 2013, the respondent filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari assailing his convictions by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 27467 and 27468. This case was docketed as G.R. Nos. 209073-74.[7]
	GR No. 197953 2015-08-05	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
Further, mere abuse of discretion is not enough; the abuse must be grave. Jurisprudence defines "grave abuse of discretion" as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.[31]
	GR No. 200898 2015-06-15	BROWN MADONNA PRESS INC. v. MARIA ROSARIO M. CASAS BRION, J.
Thus, the CA, in a Rule 65 petition assailing the NLRC's decision, examines whether the NLRC acted in such a "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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."[29] This is in contrast with appeals reaching the CA through a Rule 45 petition, where it has more leeway in reviewing both questions of fact and of law, and where the appealed decision may be reversed because of an error in judgment.[30]