Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSEPH H. REYES v. COA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188635 2013-01-29	BRENDA L. NAZARETH v. REYNALDO A. VILLAR BERSAMIN, J.
Only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail its actions.[23] Section 1 of Rule 65,[24] Rules of Court, demands that the petitioner must show that, one, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and, two, there is neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding. Inasmuch as the sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner should establish that the COA gravely abused its discretion. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[25] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ.[26]
	GR No. 157838 2011-03-08	CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
To begin with, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in filing a petition for review under Rule 45. Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party.[24] Moreover, under Section 2, Rule 64, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65. Moreover, on the merits, the petition lacks merit.
	GR No. 172027 2010-07-29	GONZALO S. GO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
[32] Reyes v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 125129, March 29, 1999, 305 SCRA 512; citing Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit, supra note 26, at 661.
	GR No. 158562 2010-04-23	RAMON R. YAP v. VS.COMMISION ON AUDIT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have previously declared that it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one that was constitutionally created like herein respondent COA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also of their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. It is, in fact, an oft-repeated rule that findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion.[33] Thus, only when the COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may this Court entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[34]
	GR No. 169637 2007-06-08	BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY v. COA NACHURA, J.
Before addressing the issues raised in the present petition, it bears noting that what was filed before this Court is a petition captioned as a Petition for Review on Certiorari. We point out that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper mode by which the COA's decisions are reviewed by this Court. Under Rule 64, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment or final order of the COA may be brought by an aggrieved party to this Court on certiorari under Rule 65.[9] Thus, it is only through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 that the COA's decisions may be reviewed and nullified by us on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction.[10]