Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEVI STRAUSS v. TONY LIM

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 191567 2013-03-20	MARIE CALLO-CLARIDAD v. PHILIP RONALD P. ESTEBAN BERSAMIN, J.
We note, to start with, that the petitioner assailed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice by filing in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43, Rules of Court. That was a grave mistake that immediately called for the outright dismissal of the petition. The filing of a petition for review under Rule 43 to review the Secretary of Justice's resolution on the determination of probable cause was an improper remedy.[11] Indeed, the CA had no appellate jurisdiction vis-à-vis the Secretary of Justice.
	GR No. 169942 2011-01-24	BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS THRU BARANGAY CAPTAIN MA. ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI v. CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, even if the CA ignores the petition's belated filing, the same would have been dismissed for being an improper remedy. It has been held that "[t]he remedy of a party desiring to elevate to the appellate court an adverse resolution of the Secretary of Justice is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A Rule 43 petition for review is a wrong mode of appeal."[27]
	GR No. 175887 2010-11-24	HEIRS OF LATE NESTOR TRIA v. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up its averments, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. The decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against respondent is necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor and ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice.[40]
	GR No. 166134 2010-06-29	ANGELES CITY v. ANGELES CITY ELECTRIC CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a rule, the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case and will not be interfered with, except where there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court.[36] For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.[37] In other words, mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[38]