Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMSON B. BEDRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 172035 2012-07-04	FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
In Bedruz v. Sandiganbayan,[45] the Court considered the opposition of the accused (to the prosecution's motion to suspend pendente lite) as sufficient to dispense with the need to actually set the prosecution's motion for hearing. The same conclusion was reached in Juan v. People,[46] where the Court ruled: In the case at bar, while there was no pre-suspension hearing held to determine the validity of the Informations that had been filed against petitioners, we believe that the numerous pleadings filed for and against them have achieved the goal of this procedure. The right to due process is satisfied nor just by an oral hearing but by the filing and the consideration by the court of the parties' pleadings, memoranda and other position papers.
	GR No. 174045 2008-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LALINETH LISONDRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sec. 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. A writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[26]
	GR NO. 162922 2007-01-31	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. AMALIK P. ESPINOSA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Grave abuse of discretion exists if the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[5] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must have been patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[6]
	GR NO. 153144 2006-10-16	VMC RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a Petition for Certiorari, it is the burden of petitioner to show grave, not just ordinary, abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,[12] or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law - mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[13] Mere errors of fact or law committed by the lower court are not correctable via a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari.[14]