Lawyerly

GR No. 191002

2010-03-17

BERSAMIN, J.

In its January 18, 2010 meeting en banc, therefore, the JBC passed a resolution,[15] which reads: The JBC, in its en banc meeting of January 18, 2010, unanimously agreed to start the process of filling up the position of Chief Justice to be vacated on May 17, 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice Honorable Reynato S. Puno.

GR No. 174935

2008-04-30

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. TRISTAN C. COLANGGO

CORONA, J.

As a general rule, a finding of guilt in administrative cases, if supported by substantial evidence (or "that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"),[18] will be sustained by this Court.[19]

GR No. 160846

2008-02-22

BENJAMIN B. GERONGA v. EDUARDO VARELA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In contrast, a decision/resolution of dismissal is that rendered by the disciplining authority after receipt of the recommendation of the investigating/ hearing officer,[42] and on the basis of his independent assessment of the case.[43] Memorandum Order No. 98-V-05 is one. It was issued by respondent after receipt of the recommendations of Del Pilar. While it incorporates by reference said recommendations, Memorandum Order No. 98-V-05 goes further by categorically declaring petitioner guilty of the administrative charges and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal. It is therefore the decision rendered by respondent as disciplining authority which may be appealed or be subject of execution, if already final.[44]

GR No. 161735

2007-09-25

EX-C1C JIMMY B. SANCHEZ v. ROBERTO T. LASTIMOSO

NACHURA, J.

We have repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions that the remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[20] In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc.,[21] we emphasized, through the erudite and eloquent ponencia of Justice Dante O. Tinga, that the writ can be issued only when the applicant's legal right to the performance of a particular act sought to be compelled is clear and complete, one which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law, thus:In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is already established. Unless the right to relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.[22]

GR NOS. 159669 - 163521

2007-03-12

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. v. ROSEMOORE MINING

TINGA, J.

Further, it is now specifically required that the resolution on the motion shall clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor. This proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for "lack of merit." Such cavalier dispositions can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same, usually on certiorari.[61]

GR NO. 163088

2006-07-20

PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. PRIMEX COCO PRODUCTS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

For a writ of mandamus to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[33] Mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.[34] The writ will not be granted where its issuance would be unavailing, nugatory, or useless.[35]

GR NO. 140929

2005-05-26

MARGARITO R. JAMERO v. ACHILLES L. MELICOR

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the second issue, suffice it to be stated that indeed, the appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC and non-appealable. However, it may be subject of certiorari if it can be shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. As the Court held in Pefianco vs. Moral,[13] even as the trial court's order may merely be interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the same when it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion.[14]

GR NO. 156047

2005-04-12

ENGR. PEDRO C. RUBIO v. EMMANUEL M. PARAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The general rule is that the aggrieved party is mandated to exhaust all administrative remedies available before resorting to judicial recourse. The tribunal, either judicial or quasi-judicial must be given a chance to correct the imputed errors on its act or order.[24] The rule is an element of the petitioner's right to action, and if he fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the judiciary shall decline to interfere.[25]

GR NO. 161309

2005-02-23

DOUGLAS LU YM v. GERTRUDES NABUA

TINGA, J.

Further, it is now specifically required that the resolution on the motion shall clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor. This proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for "lack of merit." Such cavalier dispositions can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same, usually on certiorari.[23]

GR No. 150732

2004-08-31

TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ v. HELEN B. HERNANDEZ

TINGA, J,

In fact in Pefianco v. Moral,[14] the Court had the occasion to rule that a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him he is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him during the hearing of the investigation committee. It is the administrative resolution, not the investigation report, which should be the basis of any further remedies that the losing party in an administrative case might wish to pursue.

GR No. 156039

2003-08-14

KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID v. ZENAIDA D. PANGANDAMAN-GANIA

BELLOSILLO, J.

Ordinarily, under the foregoing circumstances, neither the Civil Service Commission nor the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to direct the substantial amendment of CSC's relevant resolutions upon the behest of respondent.[13] The principle governing ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals applies suppletorily[14] mutatis mutandis -

GR No. 152576

2003-05-05

INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION v. YVETTE CONTACTO

DAVIDE JR., C.J.

In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. The reason "no merit" stated in the order is not sufficient compliance with the abovequoted rule. It has been frowned upon by the Court, for it "often creates difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise in the higher court called upon to resolve the issue."[13]

GR No. 143779

2003-04-04

FRANCISCA L. MARQUEZ v. SIMEON BALDOZ

QUISUMBING, J.

the common practice of perfunctorily denying motions to dismiss "for lack of merit." Such cavalier disposition often creates difficulty on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the part of the higher court called upon to resolve the issue, usually on certiorari.[9] However, what is prohibited by the rules is the deferment until trial of the resolution of the motion to dismiss itself. Here, the trial court did not defer resolution of the motion itself but, in fact, categorically resolved to deny it based on its finding

	GR No. 191002 2010-03-17	ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC BERSAMIN, J.
In its January 18, 2010 meeting en banc, therefore, the JBC passed a resolution,[15] which reads: The JBC, in its en banc meeting of January 18, 2010, unanimously agreed to start the process of filling up the position of Chief Justice to be vacated on May 17, 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice Honorable Reynato S. Puno.
	GR No. 174935 2008-04-30	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. TRISTAN C. COLANGGO CORONA, J.
As a general rule, a finding of guilt in administrative cases, if supported by substantial evidence (or "that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"),[18] will be sustained by this Court.[19]
	GR No. 160846 2008-02-22	BENJAMIN B. GERONGA v. EDUARDO VARELA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In contrast, a decision/resolution of dismissal is that rendered by the disciplining authority after receipt of the recommendation of the investigating/ hearing officer,[42] and on the basis of his independent assessment of the case.[43] Memorandum Order No. 98-V-05 is one. It was issued by respondent after receipt of the recommendations of Del Pilar. While it incorporates by reference said recommendations, Memorandum Order No. 98-V-05 goes further by categorically declaring petitioner guilty of the administrative charges and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal. It is therefore the decision rendered by respondent as disciplining authority which may be appealed or be subject of execution, if already final.[44]
	GR No. 161735 2007-09-25	EX-C1C JIMMY B. SANCHEZ v. ROBERTO T. LASTIMOSO NACHURA, J.
We have repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions that the remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[20] In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc.,[21] we emphasized, through the erudite and eloquent ponencia of Justice Dante O. Tinga, that the writ can be issued only when the applicant's legal right to the performance of a particular act sought to be compelled is clear and complete, one which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law, thus:In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is already established. Unless the right to relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.[22]
	GR NOS. 159669 - 163521 2007-03-12	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. v. ROSEMOORE MINING TINGA, J.
Further, it is now specifically required that the resolution on the motion shall clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor. This proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for "lack of merit." Such cavalier dispositions can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same, usually on certiorari.[61]
	GR NO. 163088 2006-07-20	PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. PRIMEX COCO PRODUCTS CALLEJO, SR., J.
For a writ of mandamus to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[33] Mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.[34] The writ will not be granted where its issuance would be unavailing, nugatory, or useless.[35]
	GR NO. 140929 2005-05-26	MARGARITO R. JAMERO v. ACHILLES L. MELICOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the second issue, suffice it to be stated that indeed, the appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC and non-appealable. However, it may be subject of certiorari if it can be shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. As the Court held in Pefianco vs. Moral,[13] even as the trial court's order may merely be interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the same when it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion.[14]
	GR NO. 156047 2005-04-12	ENGR. PEDRO C. RUBIO v. EMMANUEL M. PARAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The general rule is that the aggrieved party is mandated to exhaust all administrative remedies available before resorting to judicial recourse. The tribunal, either judicial or quasi-judicial must be given a chance to correct the imputed errors on its act or order.[24] The rule is an element of the petitioner's right to action, and if he fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the judiciary shall decline to interfere.[25]
	GR NO. 161309 2005-02-23	DOUGLAS LU YM v. GERTRUDES NABUA TINGA, J.
Further, it is now specifically required that the resolution on the motion shall clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor. This proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for "lack of merit." Such cavalier dispositions can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same, usually on certiorari.[23]
	GR No. 150732 2004-08-31	TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ v. HELEN B. HERNANDEZ TINGA, J,
In fact in Pefianco v. Moral,[14] the Court had the occasion to rule that a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him he is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him during the hearing of the investigation committee. It is the administrative resolution, not the investigation report, which should be the basis of any further remedies that the losing party in an administrative case might wish to pursue.
	GR No. 156039 2003-08-14	KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID v. ZENAIDA D. PANGANDAMAN-GANIA BELLOSILLO, J.
Ordinarily, under the foregoing circumstances, neither the Civil Service Commission nor the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to direct the substantial amendment of CSC's relevant resolutions upon the behest of respondent.[13] The principle governing ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals applies suppletorily[14] mutatis mutandis -
	GR No. 152576 2003-05-05	INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION v. YVETTE CONTACTO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. The reason "no merit" stated in the order is not sufficient compliance with the abovequoted rule. It has been frowned upon by the Court, for it "often creates difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise in the higher court called upon to resolve the issue."[13]
	GR No. 143779 2003-04-04	FRANCISCA L. MARQUEZ v. SIMEON BALDOZ QUISUMBING, J.
the common practice of perfunctorily denying motions to dismiss "for lack of merit." Such cavalier disposition often creates difficulty on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the part of the higher court called upon to resolve the issue, usually on certiorari.[9] However, what is prohibited by the rules is the deferment until trial of the resolution of the motion to dismiss itself. Here, the trial court did not defer resolution of the motion itself but, in fact, categorically resolved to deny it based on its finding

ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL