Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INTESTATE ESTATE OF CARMEN DE LUNA v. IAC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 171500 2008-04-30	FERNANDO C. PARMA v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON and MAYOR LOURDES SEÑAR VELASCO JR., J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the act was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined 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.[34] An error of judgment committed in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as "grave abuse of discretion." An abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
	GR NO. 147923 2007-10-26	JIMMY T. GO v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO VELASCO, JR., J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the act was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined 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.[52] An error of judgment committed in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as "grave abuse of discretion." An abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
	GR NO. 119716 2007-07-31	ANTONIA J. GUTANG v. DEPUTY SHERIFF CORONA, J.
Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City, on February 6, 1992, cancelled TCT No. 242/T-2[20] and issued TCT No. 10107 in the names of private respondents.[21] TCT No. 10107 also contained liens previously annotated on TCT No. (450666)-1702, including the mortgage in favor of FGU.[22]
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections[8] declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.[9]
	GR NO. 163167 2006-08-09	JINALINAN TECHNICAL SCHOOL v. NLRC 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.
	GR NO. 141393 2006-04-19	CATHERINE A. YEE v. ESTRELLITA P. BERNABE AZCUNA, J.
Neither can the petition be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As pointed out by respondent Fiscal, the petition does not allege grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which is the ground for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so 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.[18] In this connection, it is only upon showing that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion that an interlocutory order such as that involved in this case may be impugned. Be that as it may, it must be emphasized that this practice is applied only under certain exceptional circumstances to prevent unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and so as not to unduly burden the courts. [19]
	GR NO. 163902 2006-01-27	CASENT REALTY v. PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK 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.