Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARNEL C. ALCARAZ v. RAMON C. GONZALEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170134 2015-06-17	ANGEL V. TALAMPAS v. MOLDEX REALTY BRION, J.
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the June 27, 2005 decision[2] and October 21, 2005 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64715. The CA dismissed, for lack of cause of action, the complaint[4] for breach of contract and damages filed by Angel V. Talampas, Jr. (petitioner) against Moldex Realty, Inc. (respondent).
	GR No. 155996 2012-06-27	PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B. ELMA v. REINER JACOBI BRION, J.
However, Memorandum Circular No. 58[105] of the Office of the President bars an appeal from the decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice on preliminary investigations of criminal cases via a petition for review, except for those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.[106] Therefore, a party aggrieved by the DOJ's resolution - affirming or reversing the finding of the investigating prosecutor in a preliminary investigation involving an offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death - cannot appeal to the Office of the President and is left without any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. This leaves a certiorari petition as the only remedial avenue left.[107] However, the petitioner must allege and show that the DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting or denying the petition for review.
	GR No. 177780 2012-01-25	METROPOLITAN BANK v. ANTONINO O. TOBIAS III BERSAMIN, J.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government,[27] or to substitute their own judgments for that of the Executive Branch,[28] represented in this case by the Department of Justice. The settled policy is that the courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.[29] That 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, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[30] For instance, in Balanganan v. Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth Division, Cebu City,[31] the Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice exceeded his jurisdiction when he required "hard facts and solid evidence" in order to hold the defendant liable for criminal prosecution when such requirement should have been left to the court after the conduct of a trial.
	GR No. 182147 2010-12-15	ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL VELASCO JR., J.
Chan v. Secretary of Justice[50] delineated the proper remedy from the determination of the Secretary of Justice. Therein, the Court, after expounding on the policy of non-interference in the determination of the existence of probable cause absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, however, concluded, citing Alcaraz v. Gonzalez[51] and Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[52] that an aggrieved party from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice may directly resort to judicial review on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, thus: x x x [T]he findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion. This remedy is available to the aggrieved party.[53] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 147065 2008-03-14	JUANITO CHAN y LIM v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE NACHURA, J.
The general rule is that the courts do not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in determining the specificity and adequacy of the averments in a criminal complaint. The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine whether the executive determination was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse.[25] Thus, the findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion.[26] This remedy is available to the aggrieved party.