Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONRADO BANAL III v. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 169677 2013-02-18	METROPOLITAN BANK v. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL BERSAMIN, J.
We must safeguard Metrobank's right to be heard in the defense of its registered ownership of the properties, for that is what our Constitution requires us to do. Hence, the grant by the Sandiganbayan of the Republic's motion for separate trial, not being in furtherance of convenience or would not avoid prejudice to a party, and being even contrary to the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence, was arbitrary, and, therefore, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan.[29]
	GR No. 167810 2010-10-04	REPUBLIC v. ATTY. RICHARD B. RAMBUYONG DEL CASTILLO, J.
"instrumentality of the government" is grave abuse of discretion. "By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."[15] "Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law
	GR No. 184800 2010-05-05	WONINA M. BONIFACIO v. RTC OF MAKATI CARPIO MORALES, J.
The prosecution moved to reconsider the quashal of the Information,[20] insisting that the Information sufficiently conferred jurisdiction on the public respondent. It cited Banal III v. Panganiban[21] which held that the Information need not allege verbatim that the libelous publication was "printed and first published" in the appropriate venue. And it pointed out that Malayan has an office in Makati of which Helen is a resident. Moreover, the prosecution alleged that even assuming that the Information was deficient, it merely needed a formal amendment.
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have previously ruled that grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates and 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.[27] 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.[28]
	GR NO. 131023 2007-07-17	HEIRS OF LATE FAUSTINA BORRES v. JULIUS L. ABELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In G.R. Nos. 131505 and 131768, we find that Judge Abela did not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the November 28, 1997 Order suspending Atty. Villarruz and Judge Alovera from the practice of law. 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.[31]
	GR No. 125813 2007-02-06	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. CA TINGA, J.
Our ruling in Banal III v. Panganiban[19] might tend to support petitioner's argument that the phrase "printed and first published" need not be necessarily employed in the Information. The Information in that case filed by private persons before the Makati City RTC read that the libelous matter was found in a newspaper column "of the Philippine Daily Inquirer which is published in English in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and of general circulation in the Philippines and abroad x x x x."[20] The Court did observe that this information was "sufficient in form"[21] as it clearly stated "that the newspaper is published in Makati City but circulated throughout the country, which allegation accordingly vests jurisdiction over the offense charged in the RTC of Makati City."[22] Yet even notwithstanding the fact that the information in Banal III did not use the phrase "printed and first published," it still categorically stated, at the very least, that the libelous matter was "published in English in the City of Makati." In contrast, what the Information at bar categorically states is that the libelous matter was "published in Smart File," not "published in Manila."[23] The fact that the present Information further alleges that Smart File was "of general circulation in Manila" does not necessarily mean that the magazine was printed and first published in Manila. In any event, as the language in the present information hews closer to that in Agustin rather than Banal III, we find the former as the appropriate precedent to apply in this case.
	GR NO. 162580 2006-01-27	ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, 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.[13] 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.[14]