This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| First, the Court does not find that public respondent gravely abused its discretion in issuing the subject Decision. Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. Petitioners, in this case, must prove that public respondent committed not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.[11] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer,[13] a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.[14] It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. On the other hand, when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[15] | |||||
|
2014-09-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrongful conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.[91] (Underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We cannot agree with petitioner. As already stated, there was sufficient evidence that petitioner and Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. were one and the same entity. Moreover, we remind that a petition for the writ of certiorari neither deals with errors of judgment nor extends to a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' evidence or in the evaluation of their relative weight.[52] It is timely to remind that the petitioner in a special civil action for certiorari commenced against a trial court that has jurisdiction over the proceedings bears the burden to demonstrate not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent trial court in issuing the impugned order.[53] The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.[54] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.[55] Yet, here, petitioner did not discharge its burden because it failed to demonstrate that the CA erred in holding that the RTC had not committed grave abuse of discretion. A review of the records shows, indeed, that the RTC correctly rejected petitioner's third-party claim. Hence, the rejection did not come within the domain of the writ of certiorari's limiting requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction.[56] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Regarding to the second requisite, it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.[5] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Guided by the foregoing, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the writ of injunction. Petitioner, who has the burden to prove grave abuse of discretion,[39] failed to show that the RTC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting the injunction. Neither was petitioner able to prove that the injunction was issued without any factual or legal justification. In assailing the injunction, petitioner primarily relied on the prohibition on the issuance of a writ of injunction to restrain the collection of taxes. But as we have already said, there is no such prohibition in the case of local taxes. Records also show that before issuing the injunction, the RTC conducted a hearing where both parties were given the opportunity to present their arguments. During the hearing, AEC was able to show that it had a clear and unmistakable legal right over the properties to be levied and that it would sustain serious damage if these properties, which are vital to its operations, would be sold at public auction. As we see it then, the writ of injunction was properly issued. | |||||