Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. CONSTANTINO ESPIRIDION AND REMEDIOS ESPIRIDION AND SPS. RENATO RAMOS AND ERLINDA RAMOS v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 200903 2014-07-22	KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP v. JESSIE ROBREDO BRION, J.
In contrast, a ministerial duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.[19]
	GR No. 174788 2013-04-11	SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM v. CA SERENO, C.J.
Yet issuing the Order was not ministerial, because it required the exercise of discretion. Ministerial acts do not require discretion or the exercise of judgment, but only the performance of a duty pursuant to a given state of facts in the manner prescribed.[74] The Order obviously involved discretion, in both the choice of the personnel and the powers/functions to be given them.
	GR No. 191002 2010-03-17	ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC BERSAMIN, J.
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.[89]
	GR No. 157659 2010-01-25	ELIGIO P. MALLARI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BERSAMIN, J.
The court can neither halt nor hesitate to issue the writ of possession. It cannot exercise any discretion to determine whether or not to issue the writ, for the issuance of the writ to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial function.[41] Verily, a marked distinction exists between a discretionary act and a ministerial one. A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.[42]
	GR No. 157660 2008-08-29	ELIGIO P. MALLARI AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Espiridion v. Court of Appeals,[12] a case that is closely akin to the present petition, the Court expounded thus:x x x The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is merely a ministerial function. The trial court has no discretion on this matter. Hence, any talk of discretion in connection with such issuance is misplaced.
	GR No. 167280 2008-04-30	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE QUISUMBING, J.
Second, the writ of possession was not irregular despite the fact that petitioner did not post a bond. The posting of a bond as a condition for the issuance of the writ of possession becomes necessary only if it is applied for within one year from the registration of the sale with the register of deeds, i.e., during the redemption period inasmuch as ownership has not yet vested on the creditor-mortgagee. After the one-year period, and no redemption was made, the mortgagor loses all interest over it. [29] In this case, respondents were already stripped of their rights over the properties when they failed to redeem the same within one year from May 3, 1999, the date of registration of the sale. [30] Hence, when petitioner applied for the writ after the expiration of the redemption period there was even more reason to issue the writ.
	GR NO. 165963 2007-09-03	SPS. NORBERTO OLIVEROS AND ELVIRA OLIVEROS v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.[19]
	GR NO. 156364 2007-09-03	JACOBUS BERNHARD HULST v. PR BUILDERS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard for or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.[59] In the present case, all the requirements of auction sale under the Rules have been fully complied with to warrant the issuance of the corresponding certificates of sale.