Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 41 times or more.

2014-04-21
SERENO, C.J.
After a careful scrutiny of the records, We find that in excluding Exhibits "MMM" to "AAAAAAA," the Sandiganbayan properly exercised its discretion over evidence formally offered by the prosecution. Nothing therein shows that the court gravely exceeded its jurisdiction. For the reviewing court to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the lower court, the petitioner must show that the former's action was attended by grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty, or to act at all in contemplation of the law.[16]
2011-12-13
BRION, J.
Largely, the exercise of the court's discretion[80] under the exception of Section 5(f), Rule 30 of the Rules of Court depends on the attendant facts i.e., on whether the evidence would qualify as a "good reason" and be in furtherance of "the interest of justice."  For a reviewing court to properly interfere with the lower court's exercise of discretion, the petitioner must show that the lower court's action was attended by grave abuse of discretion.  Settled jurisprudence has defined this term as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty, or to act at all in contemplation of the law.[81]  Grave abuse of discretion goes beyond the bare and unsupported imputation of caprice, whimsicality or arbitrariness, and beyond allegations that merely constitute errors of judgment[82] or mere abuse of discretion.[83]
2010-06-18
PEREZ, J.
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[31]  Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter.  It means lack of power to exercise authority.[32]  Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[33]
2010-06-16
PERALTA, J.
While petitioners would insist that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, this Court is of the opinion, however, that the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, granting the forfeiture of the performance bond  among others, amount to nothing more than errors of judgment, correctible by appeal. When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.[21] If every error committed by the trial court or quasi-judicial agency were to be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari, then trial would never end and the dockets of appellate courts would be clogged beyond measure. For this reason, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[22] Since petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari, instead of appeal via a petition for review, the petition should be dismissed.
2010-02-04
PERALTA, J.
Petitioner should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, since she is assailing the CA decision and resolution which are final judgments. Rule 45 clearly provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which is just a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[18] And the petition for review must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for a new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.[19]
2009-12-15
BRION, J.
However, where the exigencies of the case are such that the ordinary methods of appeal may not prove adequate -- either in point of promptness or completeness, so that a partial if not a total failure of justice could result - a writ of certiorari may still be issued.[8] Other exceptions, Justice Florenz D. Regalado listed are as follows: (1) where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy (Salvadades vs. Pajarillo, et al., 78 Phil. 77), as where 33 appeals were involved from orders issued in a single proceeding which will inevitably result in a proliferation of more appeals (PCIB vs. Escolin, et al., L-27860 and 27896, Mar. 29, 1974); (2) where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction (Aguilar vs. Tan, L-23600, Jun 30, 1970, Cf. Bautista, et al. vs. Sarmiento, et al., L-45137, Sept. 231985); (3) for certain special consideration, as public welfare or public policy (See Jose vs. Zulueta, et al. -16598, May 31, 1961 and the cases cited therein); (4) where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in case of acquittal, there could be no remedy (People vs. Abalos, L029039, Nov. 28, 1968); (5) where the order is a patent nullity (Marcelo vs. De Guzman, et al., L-29077, June 29, 1982); and (6) where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations (St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Campos, et al., L-38280, Mar. 21, 1975).[9] [Emphasis supplied.]
2009-09-11
PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court[8] is a remedy designed only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[9] In this case, it is undisputed that the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for rehabilitation under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2000).[10]
2009-04-02
BRION, J.
Jurisprudence has defined grave abuse of discretion to mean the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of 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.[24]
2008-11-27
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot be legally used for any other purpose. Its function is only to keep the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in the petition and established: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction, means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, a board or an officer is not authorized, and is invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. "Without jurisdiction" means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[39]
2008-06-30
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is an elementary principle that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used if the proper remedy is appeal. Being an extraordinary remedy, a party can only avail himself of certiorari, if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[13] Here, appeal is the correct mode but was not seasonably utilized by the petitioner. Resort to this petition for certiorari is, therefore, improper because certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.[14] Petitions for certiorari are limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its competence such as errors of judgment. For, it is basic that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[15] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. It is not to be used for any other purpose, such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact, as what petitioner would like the Court to venture into. A petition for certiorari not being the proper remedy to correct errors of judgment as alleged in the instant case, the herein petition should be dismissed pursuant to SC Circular No. 2-90.[16]
2008-04-22
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  Such cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.[29]
2008-03-12
AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion by respondent COMELEC implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, the exercise of the power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[14] Such grave abuse of discretion is absent in this case.
2008-02-15
AZCUNA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, the exercise of the power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[6]
2008-02-04
QUISUMBING, J.
More importantly, it is an established doctrine that a petition for certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment involving the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision are beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[10] Since petitioner in this case imputes to public respondent judge errors of judgment, particularly mistakes concerning facts, law and jurisprudence, the proper remedy is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari.
2007-10-15
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[35]  However, the proper remedy of petitioner from the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals is an ordinary appeal[36] to this Court via a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[37]  To draw a distinction, an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is a continuation of the judgment complained of, while that under Rule 65 is an original or independent action.[38]  We have underscored that the remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal.  The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[39]  Hence, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available.[40]  Such a remedy will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[41]  Rule 45 is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[42] 
2007-07-10
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[23] A party cannot substitute the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the remedy of appeal. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari.[24] As this Court held in Fajardo v. Bautista[25]:Generally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and hence a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly, although the special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. On 21 December 2000, petitioner received a copy of the Order of the RTC-Branch 83 denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358; hence, he had until 18 January 2001 within which to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner on 19 February 2001 with the Court of Appeals cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. As petitioner failed to file a timely appeal, RTC-Branch 83's dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari had long become final and executory.
2007-07-04
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that the proper remedy from an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals is an appeal under Rule 45 and not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.[21] Hence, petitioner corporation could have raised the Court of Appeals Decision dated 29 November 2005 and Resolution dated 14 February 2006, affirming the assailed Decision dated 28 June 2004 of the RTC of Quezon City, to this Court via an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It should be emphasized that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari will not lie when there are other remedies available to the petitioner.[22] Therefore, in availing itself of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner corporation resorted to a wrong mode of appeal.
2006-11-22
CALLEJO, SR., J.
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[33]
2006-10-25
CARPIO, J.
The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification: DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.[7]
2006-10-16
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The impropriety of this conclusion, as perceived by petitioner, cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari.  If ever there was indeed an error committed by the appellate court in its appreciation of the facts and the subsequent conclusions it had reached, such would be, at the least, an error of fact which is not equivalent to grave abuse of discretion.  The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[15]  The raison d'etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed.[16]  If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment.[17]  Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render the decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[18]
2006-08-30
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[17] Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[18] Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[19] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[20]
2006-07-17
CORONA, J.
The writ of certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void.[8] Moreover, it is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors in judgment.[9] The rationale of this rule is that, when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed.[10] Otherwise, every mistake made by a court will deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment will be a void judgment.[11]
2006-06-30
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under Rule 45, the reglementary period to appeal is 15 days from notice of judgment or denial of the motion for reconsideration. Rule 45 is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[15] A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not cure the failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[16] The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.[17] A petition under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[18] And under Section 5(f) of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, an error in the choice or mode of appeal, as in this case, merits an outright dismissal.
2006-06-08
CORONA, J.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[7] The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[8] The phrase 'grave abuse of discretion' has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility."[9] It does not encompass an error of law.[10] Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight.[11]
2006-02-06
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[22] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368, August 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 455, 482.
2006-02-06
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,[30] not errors of judgment.[31] Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[32] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33] The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of 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.[34]
2005-12-15
CORONA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. the Court of Appeals[17] we discussed the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion:"
2005-12-09
CALLEJO, SR., J.
A writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[23] "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[24]
2005-07-14
AZCUNA, J.
Firstly, petitioners lost their appeal through the negligence of their counsel who failed to inform them of the Decision of the Court of Appeals.  It is established doctrine that the special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost, and in this case, a long-lost, remedy of appeal.[6] The special civil action itself was also filed way out of its reglementary period, or more than half a year after service of the Decision on the counsel. It is equally settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client.[7] Neither has there been a showing, in this case, that the negligence was excusable.
2005-06-15
CORONA, J.
The foregoing considered, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court which both denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit himself for DNA testing. Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the remedy of certiorari is only available "when any tribunal, board or officer 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."[52] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. the Court of Appeals[53] where we dismissed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, we discussed at length the nature of such a petition and just what was meant by "grave abuse of discretion":Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
2005-06-08
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The absence of republication of the notice of auction sale is a factual matter which by the weight of judicial precedents cannot be inquired into by this Court in a petition for certiorari. It is best addressed to the attention of the trial court and taken up in the trial of the case, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The propriety of the auction sale is a matter which the trial court is in the best position to determine. For it is basic that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[40] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction.[41] It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction,[42] not to be used for any other purpose,[43] such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact.[44] Again suffice it to say that the only issue settled here is the propriety of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction pending the final outcome of the case.
2005-04-12
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To be sure, certiorari under Rule 65[56] is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[57] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction.[58] It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction,[59] not to be used for any other purpose,[60] such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact.[61] A contrary rule would lead to confusion, and seriously hamper the administration of justice.
2004-10-12
QUISUMBING, J.
"Grave abuse of discretion," required as the sole ground for petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, has a de­fined meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.[11]
2004-08-11
PANGANIBAN, J.
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.[29]
2004-06-30
PANGANIBAN, J.
Subsequently, the Estero de Sunog Apog homeowners, thru City Councilor Danilo Varona, 2nd District, Tondo, Manila, made similar requests for verification of TCTs Nos. 12870, and 128240 to 128249, inclusive, with the LRA, docketed as LTV-98-1222. The LRA-Task Force found that "[s]ubject titles covered ten (10) lots under (LRC) Pcs-14840, which were consolidation-subdivision of Psd-11746 and (LRC) Psd-7815." TCT Nos. 128240 to 128249 had its origin from two Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 820, issued pursuant to Decree of Registration No. 1424 (31 January 1905), Expediente Number 302. These consist of Lots 1 to [10] of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-14840, portions of the consolidation of Lots 55-B and 55-C, Block 2918, Psd-11746, B, (LRC) Psd-7815, LRC Record No. 302 & N-1555. TCT No. 128270, on the other hand, had its origin from OCT No. 520 (sic) and 7477, issued pursuant to Decree Nos. 1424 and N-[23419], LRC Record No[s. 302,] N-1555. This lot is more particularly identified as Lot 10 of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-14686, portion of the consolidated Lots A, (LRC) Psd-7815, Psu-117259 & 55-A, Blk. 2918, Psd-11746, LRC Cad. No. 302 & Rec. No. N-1555. Moreover, the task force found that "(i)n plotting, based on the Manila Cadastral Map, surveys (LRC) Pcs-14686 and (LRC) Pcs-14840, of the above subjects, have encroached: Over the Estero de Sunog Apog by an estimated 30 meters; and
2004-05-20
PANGANIBAN, J.
There is grave abuse when the court -- in the exercise of its judgment -- acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner equivalent to acting with lack of jurisdiction.[51] Considering that the trial court issued the Writ of Possession in compliance with the express provisions of Act 3135, it cannot be charged with having acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[52]
2004-02-24
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al.[5] "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.  The raison d'etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed.  If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment.  In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive.  Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court."