Lawyerly

GR No. 159746

2012-07-18

SPS. RAMON MENDIOLA AND ARACELI N. MENDIOLA v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

The petition cannot prosper if the CA acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are extraordinary remedies intended to correct errors of jurisdiction and to check grave abuse of discretion. The term grave abuse of discretion connotes capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or a lack of jurisdiction.[35] The abuse must be 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, 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 or hostility.[36] Yet, here, petitioners utterly failed to establish that the CA abused its discretion, least of all gravely.

GR No. 190875

2012-06-13

ANICETO BANGIS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS v. ADOLFO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In sum, the Heirs of Bangis failed to establish the existence and due execution of the subject deed on which their claim of ownership was founded. Consequently, the RTC and CA were correct in affording no probative value to the said document.[49]

GR No. 164506

2010-01-19

PAULINO M. ALECHA v. ELMER BEN V. PASION

CORONA, J.

Grave abuse of discretion is present when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave, i.e., it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or 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 or hostility.[14] We find nothing of that sort here.

GR No. 167011

2008-04-30

SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is also well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC's sound discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offense and malpractices. Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the COMELEC's exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by law.[53] It is succinct that courts will not substitute the finding of probable cause by the COMELEC in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[54]

GR No. 140474

2007-09-21

MUNICIPALITY OF STA. FE v. MUNICIPALITY OF ARITAO

AZCUNA, J.

Considering the foregoing, the RTC correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Under the rules, it was the responsibility of the court to dismiss an action "whenever it appears that [it] has no jurisdiction over the subject matter."[22] Indeed, the RTC acted accordingly because at the time of the filing of the motion to dismiss its want of jurisdiction was evident. It was duty-bound to take judicial notice of the parameters of its jurisdiction as the choice of the proper forum was crucial - for the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time by this Court as it would never become final and executory.[23] Likewise, the standing rule is that dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action;[24] otherwise, the inevitable consequence would make the court's decision a "lawless" thing.[25] As correctly pointed out by the RTC:x x x It will be a futile act for the Court to rule on the case concerning a boundary dispute if its decision will not after all be followed by the people concerned because the decision is totally unacceptable to them. How then can the Court enforce its decision? x x x.[26]

GR NO. 166875

2007-07-31

DIGNA CONSUMIDO v. REYNALDO G. ROS

TINGA, J.

For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.[26] Estoppel is a principle that, as a rule, can be invoked only in highly exceptional and legitimate cases.[27] The essential elements of estoppel in respect to the party claiming it are: (a) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question; (b) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; and (c) action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or prejudice.[28]

GR NO. 158328

2007-02-23

FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN

QUISUMBING, J.

We agree with the appellate court that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties or be cured by their silence, acquiescence, or express consent. A party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal.[8] However, participation in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court, including invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction.[9]

GR NO. 131397

2006-01-31

REPUBLIC v. ANIANO DESIERTO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

As a general rule, this Court will not interfere with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman without any compelling reason.[8] However, this non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its discretion.[9] By grave abuse of discretion is meant "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility."[10]

GR No. 135507

2005-11-29

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. NELSON GOIMCO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The extraordinary writ of certiorari issues only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[7] Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction, meaning that the abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a 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 or hostility.[8]

GR NO. 141796

2005-06-15

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioners may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[20] To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioners must show concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.[21] They must demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan, in issuing the assailed Resolution, acted capriciously, whimsically and arbitrarily by reason of passion and personal hostility.[22] Such capricious, whimsical and arbitrary acts must be apparent on the face of the assailed Resolution. These, they failed to do.

GR NO. 160976

2005-06-08

SPS. ERNESTO ZARATE AND MA. ROSARIO ZARATE v. MAYBANK PHILIPPINES

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The ruling of the CA that the petitioners failed to establish that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders is correct. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, or to act at all in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of personal hostility.[31] Moreover, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, especially if such was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[32]

GR NO. 128305

2005-03-28

FELINO QUIAMBAO v. CA

TINGA, J.

Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess, or a lack of jurisdiction, and the abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[31] In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, questions of fact are not generally permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[32] These grounds under Rule 65 are not attendant in the instant case. Even if we take this case as so exceptional as to permit a factual review, the petition at bar fails to persuade us to rule in favor of petitioner.

GR NOS. 153524-25

2005-01-31

RODOLFO SORIA v. ANIANO DESIERTO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[12]

GR No. 156160

2004-12-09

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[26]

GR No. 141614

2002-08-14

TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR

PANGANIBAN, J.

Further, a court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived by the parties or cured by their silence, acquiescence or even express consent.[60] A party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the

	GR No. 159746 2012-07-18	SPS. RAMON MENDIOLA AND ARACELI N. MENDIOLA v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The petition cannot prosper if the CA acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are extraordinary remedies intended to correct errors of jurisdiction and to check grave abuse of discretion. The term grave abuse of discretion connotes capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or a lack of jurisdiction.[35] The abuse must be 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, 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 or hostility.[36] Yet, here, petitioners utterly failed to establish that the CA abused its discretion, least of all gravely.
	GR No. 190875 2012-06-13	ANICETO BANGIS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS v. ADOLFO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In sum, the Heirs of Bangis failed to establish the existence and due execution of the subject deed on which their claim of ownership was founded. Consequently, the RTC and CA were correct in affording no probative value to the said document.[49]
	GR No. 164506 2010-01-19	PAULINO M. ALECHA v. ELMER BEN V. PASION CORONA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is present when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave, i.e., it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or 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 or hostility.[14] We find nothing of that sort here.
	GR No. 167011 2008-04-30	SPS. CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is also well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC's sound discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offense and malpractices. Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the COMELEC's exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election laws and to prosecute the same, except as may otherwise be provided by law.[53] It is succinct that courts will not substitute the finding of probable cause by the COMELEC in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[54]
	GR No. 140474 2007-09-21	MUNICIPALITY OF STA. FE v. MUNICIPALITY OF ARITAO AZCUNA, J.
Considering the foregoing, the RTC correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Under the rules, it was the responsibility of the court to dismiss an action "whenever it appears that [it] has no jurisdiction over the subject matter."[22] Indeed, the RTC acted accordingly because at the time of the filing of the motion to dismiss its want of jurisdiction was evident. It was duty-bound to take judicial notice of the parameters of its jurisdiction as the choice of the proper forum was crucial - for the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time by this Court as it would never become final and executory.[23] Likewise, the standing rule is that dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action;[24] otherwise, the inevitable consequence would make the court's decision a "lawless" thing.[25] As correctly pointed out by the RTC:x x x It will be a futile act for the Court to rule on the case concerning a boundary dispute if its decision will not after all be followed by the people concerned because the decision is totally unacceptable to them. How then can the Court enforce its decision? x x x.[26]
	GR NO. 166875 2007-07-31	DIGNA CONSUMIDO v. REYNALDO G. ROS TINGA, J.
For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.[26] Estoppel is a principle that, as a rule, can be invoked only in highly exceptional and legitimate cases.[27] The essential elements of estoppel in respect to the party claiming it are: (a) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question; (b) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; and (c) action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or prejudice.[28]
	GR NO. 158328 2007-02-23	FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with the appellate court that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties or be cured by their silence, acquiescence, or express consent. A party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal.[8] However, participation in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court, including invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction.[9]
	GR NO. 131397 2006-01-31	REPUBLIC v. ANIANO DESIERTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As a general rule, this Court will not interfere with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman without any compelling reason.[8] However, this non-interference does not apply when there is grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its discretion.[9] By grave abuse of discretion is meant "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility."[10]
	GR No. 135507 2005-11-29	PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. NELSON GOIMCO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The extraordinary writ of certiorari issues only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[7] Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction, meaning that the abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a 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 or hostility.[8]
	GR NO. 141796 2005-06-15	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[20] To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioners must show concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.[21] They must demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan, in issuing the assailed Resolution, acted capriciously, whimsically and arbitrarily by reason of passion and personal hostility.[22] Such capricious, whimsical and arbitrary acts must be apparent on the face of the assailed Resolution. These, they failed to do.
	GR NO. 160976 2005-06-08	SPS. ERNESTO ZARATE AND MA. ROSARIO ZARATE v. MAYBANK PHILIPPINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
The ruling of the CA that the petitioners failed to establish that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders is correct. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, or to act at all in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of personal hostility.[31] Moreover, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, especially if such was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[32]
	GR NO. 128305 2005-03-28	FELINO QUIAMBAO v. CA TINGA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess, or a lack of jurisdiction, and the abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[31] In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, questions of fact are not generally permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal had acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[32] These grounds under Rule 65 are not attendant in the instant case. Even if we take this case as so exceptional as to permit a factual review, the petition at bar fails to persuade us to rule in favor of petitioner.
	GR NOS. 153524-25 2005-01-31	RODOLFO SORIA v. ANIANO DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[12]
	GR No. 156160 2004-12-09	JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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, 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 or hostility.[26]
	GR No. 141614 2002-08-14	TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR PANGANIBAN, J.
Further, a court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived by the parties or cured by their silence, acquiescence or even express consent.[60] A party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the

GABRIEL L. DUERO v. CA