This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| By grave abuse of discretion is meant 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[15] It also bears stressing that the true function of the writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from the arbitrary acts of courts.[16] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nor can we agree that petitioner was guilty of forum-shopping. Under the Same Objective Standard enunciated in the case of First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals,[33] the filing by a party of two apparently different actions, but with the same objective, constitutes forum- shopping.[34] Here, the special civil action of certiorari before us is an independent action. The ultimate purpose of such action is to keep the inferior tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or relieve parties from arbitrary acts of the court.[35] In contrast, the petition for review before the Court of Appeals under Rule 42 involves an evaluation of the case on the merits. Clearly, petitioner did not commit forum-shopping. | |||||