This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court.[37] As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,[38] and not a petition for certiorari. | |||||
|
2010-04-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have discussed the nature of a certiorari petition - it is intended to correct only errors of jurisdiction where the court or tribunal has acted with grave abuse of discretion. A writ of certiorari cannot be used for any other purpose; it cannot be used to resolve questions or issues beyond its competence such as errors of judgment. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, its conclusions anchored on the said findings, and its conclusions of law.[16] | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it should be stressed that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, the reason being that the Court is not a trier of facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[18] | |||||