This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Although the Constitution concededly guarantees that "(a)ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies",[50] it is evident that petitioners' arguments in G.R. No. 160067 have more to do with the wisdom of the assailed rulings of the RTCs of Naga and Parañaque than said courts' jurisdiction to issue the same. Consistent with its function as a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction,[51] however, the rule is settled that errors of judgment involving the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision are beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[52] Not being intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling,[53] a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case.[54] As long as the trial court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged error committed in the exercise of its discretion will, therefore, amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgments, correctible by an appeal and not by a petition for certiorari.[55] | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.[16] The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case.[17] | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, and not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[27] It is obvious in this case that the arguments raised by the petitioners delved into the wisdom or legal soundness of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, therefore, the proper remedy is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Court to dismiss this Petition. | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is worth mentioning that Ramcar received the Resolution of the CA denying its Motion for Reconsideration on 23 December 2002.[24] Ramcar filed its Petition for Certiorari on 21 February 2003 or sixty (60) days after receipt of the Resolution. Since Ramcar failed to appeal within fifteen (15) days from its receipt of the Resolution, the decision of the CA had become final and executory. It is well-settled that the filing of the petition for certiorari cannot serve as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.[25] Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision-not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision-the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[26] | |||||
|
2006-02-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,[30] not errors of judgment.[31] Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[32] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33] The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of 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 and hostility.[34] | |||||
|
2005-04-22 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is settled that under a given set of facts, a customs broker may be regarded as a common carrier. Thus, this Court, in A.F. Sanchez Brokerage, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals,[44] held:The appellate court did not err in finding petitioner, a customs broker, to be also a common carrier, as defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, to wit, | |||||
|
2005-04-22 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is settled that under a given set of facts, a customs broker may be regarded as a common carrier. Thus, this Court, in A.F. Sanchez Brokerage, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals,[44] held:The appellate court did not err in finding petitioner, a customs broker, to be also a common carrier, as defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, to wit, | |||||