This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-10-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly declared that petitioner pursued the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari may be availed of only if the lower court or tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[3] In Angara v. Fedman Development Corporation,[4] we explained that: 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. 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. 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 so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. In the early case of Philippine Trust Co. v. Santamaria,[5] we ruled that after a final judgment has been rendered by the Supreme Court, or even by a trial court for that matter, it is the duty of the court to enforce the judgment according to its terms. In other words, where the judgment of an appellate court has become final and executory and is returned to the lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of execution. The Philippine Trust doctrine has been reaffirmed in Buenaventura v. Garcia and Garcia,[6] Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[7] and Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun.[8] | |||||