Lawyerly

GR No. 182572

2012-06-18

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

SERENO, J.

We have repeatedly said that 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 or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[14]

GR No. 172299

2008-04-22

ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority[31] 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] "Excess of jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority;[33] or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) 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.[34] While that of "grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[35]

GR NO. 160871

2006-02-06

TRIAD SECURITY v. SILVESTRE ORTEGA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is a basic tenet of procedural rules that for a special civil action for a petition for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or an 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.[33]

GR NO. 158540

2005-08-03

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION v. CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

TINGA, J.

The Court of Appeals Twelfth Division, in a Decision[13] penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Elvi John Asuncion,[14] partially granted Philcemcor's petition. The appellate court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari since it alleged grave abuse of discretion. While it refused to annul the findings of the Tariff Commission,[15] it also held that the DTI Secretary was not bound by the factual findings of the Tariff Commission since such findings are merely recommendatory and they fall within the ambit of the Secretary's discretionary review. It determined that the legislative intent is to grant the DTI Secretary the power to make a final decision on the Tariff Commission's recommendation.[16]

GR No. 161172

2004-12-13

NADINE ROSARIO M. MORALES v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

"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 or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[17]

GR No. 156067

2004-08-11

MADRIGAL TRANSPORT v. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION

PANGANIBAN, J.

"Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority.[31] There is "excess of jurisdiction" when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority.[32] "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[33]

GR Nos. 153714-20

2003-08-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO K. ESPINOSA

PANGANIBAN, J.

"And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused."[26] It has been the unwavering position of this Court that substantial rights cannot be trifled with or cast aside on the basis of mere suppositions and conjectures. The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out convincingly. Such waiver must be clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent.[27]

GR No. 132396

2002-09-23

PEOPLE v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.[49] While it is true that double jeopardy will attach in case the prosecution appeals a decision acquitting the accused,[50] it is likewise true that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction does not really "acquit" and therefore does not terminate the case.[51] There can be no double jeopardy if the said acquittal is based on a void indictment.[52] Crucial therefore is our determination of whether grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, was committed by respondent Court of Appeals when it acquitted Deutsch. A tribunal, board or officer is said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion when it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an erosion or a virtual refusal to

GR No. 131282

2002-01-04

GABRIEL L. DUERO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Coming now to the principal issue, petitioner contends that respondent appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion. By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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.[11] But here we find that in its decision holding that the municipal court has jurisdiction over the case and that private respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC, respondent Court of Appeals discussed the facts on which its decision is grounded as well as the law and jurisprudence on the matter.[12] Its action was neither whimsical nor capricious.

GR No. 147066

2001-03-26

AKBAYAN - YOUTH v. COMELEC

BUENA, J.

On this particular matter, grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of laws.[19]

	GR No. 182572 2012-06-18	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN SERENO, J.
We have repeatedly said that 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 or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[14]
	GR No. 172299 2008-04-22	ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority[31] 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] "Excess of jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority;[33] or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) 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.[34] While that of "grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[35]
	GR NO. 160871 2006-02-06	TRIAD SECURITY v. SILVESTRE ORTEGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a basic tenet of procedural rules that for a special civil action for a petition for certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or an 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.[33]
	GR NO. 158540 2005-08-03	SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION v. CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES TINGA, J.
The Court of Appeals Twelfth Division, in a Decision[13] penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Elvi John Asuncion,[14] partially granted Philcemcor's petition. The appellate court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari since it alleged grave abuse of discretion. While it refused to annul the findings of the Tariff Commission,[15] it also held that the DTI Secretary was not bound by the factual findings of the Tariff Commission since such findings are merely recommendatory and they fall within the ambit of the Secretary's discretionary review. It determined that the legislative intent is to grant the DTI Secretary the power to make a final decision on the Tariff Commission's recommendation.[16]
	GR No. 161172 2004-12-13	NADINE ROSARIO M. MORALES v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
"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 or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[17]
	GR No. 156067 2004-08-11	MADRIGAL TRANSPORT v. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
"Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority.[31] There is "excess of jurisdiction" when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority.[32] "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[33]
	GR Nos. 153714-20 2003-08-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO K. ESPINOSA PANGANIBAN, J.
"And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused."[26] It has been the unwavering position of this Court that substantial rights cannot be trifled with or cast aside on the basis of mere suppositions and conjectures. The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out convincingly. Such waiver must be clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent.[27]
	GR No. 132396 2002-09-23	PEOPLE v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.[49] While it is true that double jeopardy will attach in case the prosecution appeals a decision acquitting the accused,[50] it is likewise true that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction does not really "acquit" and therefore does not terminate the case.[51] There can be no double jeopardy if the said acquittal is based on a void indictment.[52] Crucial therefore is our determination of whether grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, was committed by respondent Court of Appeals when it acquitted Deutsch. A tribunal, board or officer is said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion when it exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an erosion or a virtual refusal to
	GR No. 131282 2002-01-04	GABRIEL L. DUERO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Coming now to the principal issue, petitioner contends that respondent appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion. By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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.[11] But here we find that in its decision holding that the municipal court has jurisdiction over the case and that private respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC, respondent Court of Appeals discussed the facts on which its decision is grounded as well as the law and jurisprudence on the matter.[12] Its action was neither whimsical nor capricious.
	GR No. 147066 2001-03-26	AKBAYAN - YOUTH v. COMELEC BUENA, J.
On this particular matter, grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of laws.[19]

EDUARDO CUISON v. CA