This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-09-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "Grave abuse of discretion" defies exact definition; generally, it refers to "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction;" the abuse of discretion must be 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 and hostility.[53] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.[54] We have held, too, that the use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision-maker's action with grave abuse of discretion.[55] | |||||
|
2012-07-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| As defined in jurisprudence, errors of jurisdiction occur when the court exercises jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law.[18] They may also occur when the court or tribunal, although it has jurisdiction, acts in excess of it or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.[19] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so 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.[22] | |||||
|
2009-04-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the remedy from an adverse resolution of the Ombudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,[25] but what was filed with the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Nevertheless, the Court will treat this petition as one filed under Rule 65 since a reading of its contents shows that the Committee imputes grave abuse of discretion to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint.[26] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, what was filed before this Court is a petition captioned as Petition for Review on Certiorari. We have ruled, time and again, that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper mode by which resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases are reviewed by this Court. The remedy from the adverse resolution of the Ombudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,[10] not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Whether or not the case is barred by prescription.[8] Before addressing the issues raised in the present petition, we note that what was filed before this Court is a petition captioned as a Petition for Review on Certiorari. We must point out that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper mode by which resolutions of the Ombudsman in preliminary investigations of criminal cases are reviewed by this Court. The remedy from the adverse resolution of the Ombudsman is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,[9] not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. (Italics supplied.)[21] Secondly, the allegations and evidence presented by petitioner failed to prove that the OMB-Mindanao acted in such a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment in determining the existence of probable cause against him. As defined by this Court By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so 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.[22] The OMB-Mindanao based the finding of probable cause on the various affidavits and memoranda and other evidence submitted to it by the parties during preliminary investigation. Petitioner and private respondent were both accorded the opportunity to present their sides and refute each other's contentions. It bears to emphasize that the Resolution[23] dated 26 November 2004 of the OMB-Mindanao specifically referred to the following evidence which it took into consideration in its investigation:Memorandum dated 2 July 2001 | |||||