Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCEPCION V. VDA. DE DAFFON v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR NO. 166496 2006-11-29	JOSEFA BAUTISTA FERRER v. SPS. MANUEL M. FERRER AND VIRGINIA FERRER AND SPS. ISMAEL M. FERRER AND FLORA FERRER CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the determination of the presence of these elements, inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint. Only the statements in the Complaint may be properly considered.[20] The absence of any of these elements makes a complaint vulnerable to a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of a failure to state a cause of action.[21]
	GR NO. 151007 2006-07-17	TRIPLEX ENTERPRISES v. PNB-REPUBLIC BANK CORONA, J.
Certiorari as a special civil action is proper when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. [5] The writ may be issued only where it is convincingly proved that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, or an act too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or that the trial court exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[6]
	GR NO. 145213 2006-03-28	JIMMY T. GO A.K.A. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR AZCUNA, J.
The Court finds the petition without merit. It should be noted that the assailed decision was decided by the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. To be granted relief under a special civil action, it must be convincingly proven that the court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion, or an act constituting a patent and gross evasion of a duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, or that the trial court exercised its powers in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.[12] Bearing this standard in mind, the Court finds no error in the denial of the petition by the Court of Appeals as there was no showing that the RTC had gravely abused its discretion or whimsically exercised its judgment. The Court agrees with the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the decision was properly mailed to Atty. Javier as he was still counsel of record. His receipt of the decision on October 20, 1999 is, therefore, the starting point from which to count the 15-day reglementary period. The RTC, therefore, correctly dismissed the Notice of Appeal that was filed late.
	GR NO. 149449 2006-02-20	DANIEL C. VALENZUELA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
[14] Vda. de Daffon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129017, August 20, 2002, 387 SCRA 427.
	GR NO. 146818 2006-02-06	JAN-DEC CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[25] Vda. de Daffon v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 233, 239 (2002).
	GR NO. 156887 2005-10-03	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. AMALIA F. DY IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC MANDALUYONG CITY AZCUNA, J.
It must first be emphasized that PNCC instituted a special action for certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. For a special action for certiorari to lie, it must be convincingly proven that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, or an act too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or that the trial court exercised its powers in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.[11] Mere errors of judgment are not correctable by certiorari. PNCC must show that the trial court had acted in such a whimsical and capricious manner when it resolved its Motions to Dismiss and Set Aside the Order and/or Discharge the Writ of Attachment.
	GR NO. 156893 2005-06-21	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL PANGANIBAN, J.
By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to an excess or a lack of jurisdiction; an abuse so patent and so gross as to amount to an invasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power as a result of passion or hostility.[14]
	GR No. 154187 2004-04-14	MONDRAGON LEISURE v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK PANGANIBAN, J.
It should be stressed that in determining whether a complaint fails to state a cause of action, only the allegations therein may be properly considered.[17] Moreover, a defendant who moves to dismiss the complaint on this ground hypothetically admits all the averments thereof.[18]
	GR No. 125758 2004-01-20	HEIRS OF SUSANA DE GUZMAN TUAZON v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is axiomatic that the allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action, and consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts.[12] This is because the complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action and specify the relief sought.[13] The pertinent allegations made by the private respondents in their petition in Civil Case No. 95-3577 are herein-below reproduced, to wit: Nazario de Guzman was the owner in fee simple of those parcels of land situated at Barrio Dilang-Cainta, Rizal, embraced in and covered by then Original Certificate of Title No. 4331 issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal, a photocopy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A" and made a part hereof and which parcels of land are more particularly described as follows: