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. 168157

2015-08-19

HILARIO P. SORIANO v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Secondly, the exclusive discretion to determine the existence of probable cause to charge Atty. Cleofe as a public official in a criminal case pertained to the Office of the Ombudsman. Such discretion cannot be interfered with. As the Court has pointed out in Vergara v. Ombudsman:[29]

GR No. 184130

2015-06-29

SANDRA M. CAM v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO

SERENO, C.J.

The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. The complaint may be dismissed should the Ombudsman find it insufficient in form or substance, or the Ombudsman may proceed with the investigation if the complaint appears to be in due form and substance.[53] Hence, the filing or non-filing of the information is primarily lodged within the full discretion of the Ombudsman.[54]

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. 192685

2013-07-31

OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

PEREZ, J.

Plainly, the Ombudsman has "full discretion," based on the attendant facts and circumstances, to determine the existence of probable cause or the lack thereof.[20] On this score, we have consistently hewed to the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated powers.[21] The Ombudsman's finding to proceed or desist in the prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed through certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion which contemplates an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[22]

GR No. 190569

2012-04-25

P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO

SERENO, J.

This Court has consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's investigatory powers.[48] It is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that such discretion was gravely abused in order to warrant this Court's reversal of the Ombudsman's findings.[49] This, petitioner has failed to do.

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. 155307

2011-06-06

M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES v. OMBUDSMAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

It is well-settled that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman.[13] The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[14] It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not.[15] As explained in Esquivel v. Ombudsman:[16]

GR Nos. 169359-61

2011-06-01

MARCELO G. GANADEN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On the assertion of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we are guided by previous pronouncements of this Court regarding this matter. In Vergara v. Ombudsman,[21] the Court ruled: We reiterate the rule that courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause unless there are compelling reasons. The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, or lack of it, is entitled to great respect absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Besides, to justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion, the abuse 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 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.

GR Nos. 190580-81

2011-02-21

LIBERATO M. CARABEO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

ABAD, J.

But what Carabeo fails to grasp is that it was eventually the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOF-RIPS, that filed the criminal cases against him before the Sandiganbayan. That office is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office, or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[5] The Office of the Ombudsman could file the informations subject of these cases without any help from the DOF-RIPS.

GR No. 171873

2010-07-09

MUNICIPALITY OF TIWI v. ANTONIO B. BETITO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Prescinding therefrom, petitioners' next contention that the subject contract should first be ratified in order to become enforceable as against Tiwi must necessarily fail. As correctly held by the CA, the law speaks of prior authorization and not ratification with respect to the power of the local chief executive to enter into a contract on behalf of the local government unit.[25] This authority, as discussed above, was granted by the Sangguniang Bayan to Mayor Corral as per Resolution No. 15-92.

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. 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. 168157 2015-08-19	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly, the exclusive discretion to determine the existence of probable cause to charge Atty. Cleofe as a public official in a criminal case pertained to the Office of the Ombudsman. Such discretion cannot be interfered with. As the Court has pointed out in Vergara v. Ombudsman:[29]
	GR No. 184130 2015-06-29	SANDRA M. CAM v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, C.J.
The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. The complaint may be dismissed should the Ombudsman find it insufficient in form or substance, or the Ombudsman may proceed with the investigation if the complaint appears to be in due form and substance.[53] Hence, the filing or non-filing of the information is primarily lodged within the full discretion of the Ombudsman.[54]
	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. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
Plainly, the Ombudsman has "full discretion," based on the attendant facts and circumstances, to determine the existence of probable cause or the lack thereof.[20] On this score, we have consistently hewed to the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated powers.[21] The Ombudsman's finding to proceed or desist in the prosecution of a criminal case can only be assailed through certiorari proceedings before this Court on the ground that such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion which contemplates an abuse so grave and so patent equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[22]
	GR No. 190569 2012-04-25	P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, J.
This Court has consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's investigatory powers.[48] It is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that such discretion was gravely abused in order to warrant this Court's reversal of the Ombudsman's findings.[49] This, petitioner has failed to do.
	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. 155307 2011-06-06	M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES v. OMBUDSMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is well-settled that the determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman.[13] The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[14] It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not.[15] As explained in Esquivel v. Ombudsman:[16]
	GR Nos. 169359-61 2011-06-01	MARCELO G. GANADEN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the assertion of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we are guided by previous pronouncements of this Court regarding this matter. In Vergara v. Ombudsman,[21] the Court ruled: We reiterate the rule that courts do not interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of discretion in determining probable cause unless there are compelling reasons. The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, or lack of it, is entitled to great respect absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Besides, to justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion, the abuse 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 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.
	GR Nos. 190580-81 2011-02-21	LIBERATO M. CARABEO v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
But what Carabeo fails to grasp is that it was eventually the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOF-RIPS, that filed the criminal cases against him before the Sandiganbayan. That office is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office, or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.[5] The Office of the Ombudsman could file the informations subject of these cases without any help from the DOF-RIPS.
	GR No. 171873 2010-07-09	MUNICIPALITY OF TIWI v. ANTONIO B. BETITO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Prescinding therefrom, petitioners' next contention that the subject contract should first be ratified in order to become enforceable as against Tiwi must necessarily fail. As correctly held by the CA, the law speaks of prior authorization and not ratification with respect to the power of the local chief executive to enter into a contract on behalf of the local government unit.[25] This authority, as discussed above, was granted by the Sangguniang Bayan to Mayor Corral as per Resolution No. 15-92.
	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]

SEVERINO B. VERGARA v. OMBUDSMAN