This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| For sure, the Court cannot jettison the presumption of good faith in this or in any other case. The presumption is a matter of law. It has had a long history. Indeed, good faith has long been established as a legal principle even in the heydays of the Roman Empire.[51] In Soriano v. Marcelo,[52] citing Collantes v. Marcelo,[53] the Court emphasizes the necessity of the presumption of good faith, thus:Well-settled is the rule that good faith is always presumed and the Chapter on Human Relations of the Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe good faith which springs from the fountain of good conscience. Specifically, a public officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties. Mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. "Bad faith" does not simply connote bad moral judgment or negligence. There must be some dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will. It partakes of the nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior purposes. | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| [13] Soriano v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 394, 402, citing Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, G.R. No. 139296, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 207, 215. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Worthy of note is the case of Soriano v. Marcelo,[27] viz: Case law has it that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the aforequoted provisions, the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, are as follows: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[27] | |||||
|
2009-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the fifth[16] and seventh[17] issues, although petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion, such issues involve errors of judgment which are not reviewable in a certiorari proceeding. In the fifth issue, petitioners claim that the case can be dismissed on summary judgment for lack of cause of action while in the seventh issue, they assert that the trial court should have granted a preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner corporation to protect its intellectual property rights. The Court notes that the arguments raised by petitioners are not errors involving jurisdiction but one of judgment, which is beyond the ambit of a certiorari proceeding. A certiorari proceeding is an extraordinary remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[18] As such, a petition for certiorari must aver only jurisdictional matters or raise questions of jurisdiction. Thus, if the facts alleged do not raise any genuine jurisdictional issue, the petition for certiorari would be devoid of merit.[19] As held in People v. Court of Appeals:[20] | |||||