This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-08-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The petitioner contends in its petition that the Court of Appeals should have given credence to the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter as these were "supported by substantial evidence."[27] In fine, petitioner only argues that the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the evidence made by the Labor Arbiter. The petitioner overlooks that the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals dealt with a petition for certiorari that it filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the public respondent NLRC's decision.[28] It is basic that mere errors of fact or law committed by a lower court are not correctable via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.[29] For a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to prosper, the tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions must act without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[30] The phrase "grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined in our jurisprudence. It exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so 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 law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[31] For the reason that the petitioner school failed to allege and prove in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals that public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, we hold that the appellate court correctly dismissed the petitioner school's Rule 65 petition for certiorari. | |||||
|
2006-01-27 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| However, the records are arid as to acts of the Regional Trial Court constituting grave abuse of discretion. It is basic that mere errors of law are not correctible via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[20] The grant of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari requires grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to 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 personal hostility.[21] For that reason, the Court of Appeals erred in granting Premiere Bank's Rule 65 petition for certiorari. | |||||
|
2005-11-17 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Respondents contend that CBC's omission of allegations that Ms. German was an authorized signatory in its certification against forum shopping was fatal. The respondents forget that the petition pending before the Court of Appeals was filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires the existence of grave abuse of discretion. The mere denial of respondents' motion to dismiss under the alleged circumstances falls short of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so 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 law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[8] Mere errors of fact or law committed by the lower court are not correctable via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.[9] | |||||
|
2005-07-27 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| This Court finds no reason to disagree with the Sandiganbayan. Its conclusions are amply supported by the record. Additionally, the issue of whether petitioner committed fraud upon the government or public funds or property is essentially factual. In a special civil action for certiorari, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court cannot correct errors of fact or law which do not amount to grave abuse of discretion.[30] | |||||