Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 208587 2015-07-29	JM DOMINGUEZ AGRONOMIC COMPANY v. CECILIA LICLICAN VELASCO JR., J.
We have previously ruled that grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and 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 by or to act at all in contemplation of law. The word “capricious,” usually used in tandem with the term “arbitrary,” conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative.[23]
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The first case is G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution[6] as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor.[7]
	GR No. 185401 2009-07-21	HENRY 'JUN' DUEÑAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL CORONA, J.
All told, it should be borne in mind that the present petition is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It alleges that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it promulgated Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008. But what is "grave abuse of discretion?" It is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Ordinary abuse of discretion is insufficient. The abuse of discretion must be grave, that is, the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of the law. In other words, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. There is also grave abuse of discretion when there is a contravention of the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.[62] Using the foregoing as yardstick, the Court finds that petitioner miserably failed to discharge the onus probandi imposed on him.
	GR No. 166520 2008-03-14	VILMA C. TAN v. FRANCISCO C. GEDORIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Not being appealable, the only remedy against the appointment of a special administrator is Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was what petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals. Certiorari, however, requires nothing less than grave abuse of discretion, a term which implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or 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.[15]
	GR No. 175989 2008-02-04	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MARIANO A. NOCOM SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Perez v. Court of Appeals,[5] this Court ruled that the legal interest which entitles a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment.
	GR NO. 154837 2007-03-22	ANG BIAT HUAN SONS INDUSTRIES v. CA CORONA, J.
As a rule, a petition for certiorari will not lie where an appeal is an adequate remedy such as when an error of judgment or procedure is involved.[15] Ordinarily, the proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[16] Petitioner should have thus questioned the CA's resolutions via Rule 45. Well-entrenched is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari cannot stand as substitute for a lost appeal.[17]
	GR NO. 171821 2006-10-09	DANILO 'DAN' FERNANDEZ v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction; it contemplates a situation where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of law.[4] In a certiorari proceeding, as in the instant case, it is imperative for petitioner to show caprice and arbitrariness on the part of the court or agency whose exercise of discretion is being assailed.