Lawyerly

GR No. 160399

2015-12-09

BERSAMIN, J.

Under the circumstances, the challenged orders of the RTC were undeniably tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[23] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[24]

GR No. 193919

2015-06-15

BIÑAN RURAL BANK v. JOSE WILLELMINO G. CARLOS

BRION, J.

Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that effectively brings the acting entity outside the exercise of its proper jurisdiction.[16] The abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[17]

GR No. 191053

2011-11-28

MARIO B. DIMAGAN v. DACWORKS UNITED

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

"Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court."[18]

GR No. 156358

2011-08-17

ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO

BERSAMIN, J.

Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[31] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[32]

GR No. 175730

2010-07-05

HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

There is forum shopping when one party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.[90] Forum shopping is a prohibited malpractice and condemned as trifling with the courts and their processes.[91] It is proscribed because it unnecessarily burdens the courts with heavy caseloads, and unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary.[92] It is inimical to the orderly administration of justice as it creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by two courts,[93] and opens the system to the possibility of manipulation.[94]

GR Nos. 164669-70

2009-10-30

LIEZL CO v. HAROLD LIM Y GO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.[34] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[35]

GR No. 180988

2009-08-28

JULIE'S FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. CHANDLER O. RUIZ

CARPIO, J.

The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11] The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[12] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[13]

GR No. 182311

2009-08-19

FIDEL O. CHUA v. METROPOLITAN BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Forum shopping exists when a party repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.[32]

GR No. 178188

2009-05-08

OLYMPIC MINES v. PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION

BRION, J.

Both Olympic and Citinickel evidently trifled with the courts and abused its processes by improperly instituting several cases before various judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, one case after another (some even simultaneously filed during the pendency of other cases) once it became evident that a favorable decision will not be obtained in the previously filed case - all of which are focused on the termination of the Operating Agreement and the cancellation of Platinum's mining permits. While a party may avail himself of the remedies prescribed by law or by the Rules of Court, such party is not free to resort to them simultaneously or at his pleasure or caprice.[48] The actions of Olympic and Citinickel, taken separately or collectively, betray a pattern of calculated and intentional forum shopping that warrants denial of the reliefs they pray for.

GR No. 179895

2008-12-18

TOPACIO v. ONG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it 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 or to act at all in contemplation of law.[18]

GR No. 179895

2008-12-18

TOPACIO v. ONG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Nothing is more settled than the principle, which goes back to the 1905 case of Acosta v. Flor,[36] reiterated in the recent 2008 case of Feliciano v. Villasin,[37] that for a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential right to be appointed thereto can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.[38]

GR No. 179895

2008-12-18

TOPACIO v. ONG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In the instance in which the Petition for Quo Warranto is filed by an individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. In actions for Quo Warranto to determine title to a public office, the complaint, to be sufficient in form, must show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office. In Garcia v. Perez, this Court ruled that the person instituting Quo Warranto proceedings on his own behalf, under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, must aver and be able to show that he is entitled to the office in dispute. Without such averment or evidence of such right, the action may be dismissed at any stage.[40] (Emphasis in the original)

	GR No. 160399 2015-12-09	CITY OF ILOILO v. JUDGE RENE B. HONRADO BERSAMIN, J.
Under the circumstances, the challenged orders of the RTC were undeniably tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[23] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[24]
	GR No. 193919 2015-06-15	BIÑAN RURAL BANK v. JOSE WILLELMINO G. CARLOS BRION, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that effectively brings the acting entity outside the exercise of its proper jurisdiction.[16] The abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[17]
	GR No. 191053 2011-11-28	MARIO B. DIMAGAN v. DACWORKS UNITED PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
"Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court."[18]
	GR No. 156358 2011-08-17	ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO BERSAMIN, J.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[31] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[32]
	GR No. 175730 2010-07-05	HERMINIO T. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
There is forum shopping when one party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.[90] Forum shopping is a prohibited malpractice and condemned as trifling with the courts and their processes.[91] It is proscribed because it unnecessarily burdens the courts with heavy caseloads, and unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary.[92] It is inimical to the orderly administration of justice as it creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by two courts,[93] and opens the system to the possibility of manipulation.[94]
	GR Nos. 164669-70 2009-10-30	LIEZL CO v. HAROLD LIM Y GO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.[34] The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[35]
	GR No. 180988 2009-08-28	JULIE'S FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. CHANDLER O. RUIZ CARPIO, J.
The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11] The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[12] To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[13]
	GR No. 182311 2009-08-19	FIDEL O. CHUA v. METROPOLITAN BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping exists when a party repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.[32]
	GR No. 178188 2009-05-08	OLYMPIC MINES v. PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION BRION, J.
Both Olympic and Citinickel evidently trifled with the courts and abused its processes by improperly instituting several cases before various judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, one case after another (some even simultaneously filed during the pendency of other cases) once it became evident that a favorable decision will not be obtained in the previously filed case - all of which are focused on the termination of the Operating Agreement and the cancellation of Platinum's mining permits. While a party may avail himself of the remedies prescribed by law or by the Rules of Court, such party is not free to resort to them simultaneously or at his pleasure or caprice.[48] The actions of Olympic and Citinickel, taken separately or collectively, betray a pattern of calculated and intentional forum shopping that warrants denial of the reliefs they pray for.
	GR No. 179895 2008-12-18	TOPACIO v. ONG CARPIO MORALES, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it 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 or to act at all in contemplation of law.[18]
	GR No. 179895 2008-12-18	TOPACIO v. ONG CARPIO MORALES, J.
Nothing is more settled than the principle, which goes back to the 1905 case of Acosta v. Flor,[36] reiterated in the recent 2008 case of Feliciano v. Villasin,[37] that for a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential right to be appointed thereto can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.[38]
	GR No. 179895 2008-12-18	TOPACIO v. ONG CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the instance in which the Petition for Quo Warranto is filed by an individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. In actions for Quo Warranto to determine title to a public office, the complaint, to be sufficient in form, must show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office. In Garcia v. Perez, this Court ruled that the person instituting Quo Warranto proceedings on his own behalf, under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, must aver and be able to show that he is entitled to the office in dispute. Without such averment or evidence of such right, the action may be dismissed at any stage.[40] (Emphasis in the original)

ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. NESTOR P. VILLASIN