This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A petition for prohibition will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.[102] | |||||
|
2013-07-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, in a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court or quasi-judicial body with jurisdiction over a case, petitioner carries the burden of proving that the court or quasi-judicial body committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.[14] Showing mere abuse of discretion is not enough, for it is necessary to demonstrate that the abuse of discretion was grave. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[15] Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the records and by the applicable laws and jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court with jurisdiction over a case, the petitioner carries the burden to prove that the respondent tribunal committed not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.[49] Showing mere abuse of discretion is not enough, for the abuse must be shown to be grave. Grave abuse of discretion means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[50] Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the history of the dispute and borne out by the applicable laws and jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2013-01-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail its actions.[23] Section 1 of Rule 65,[24] Rules of Court, demands that the petitioner must show that, one, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and, two, there is neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding. Inasmuch as the sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner should establish that the COA gravely abused its discretion. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[25] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ.[26] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Still, the Sandiganbayan's error in not allowing Reyes to ask for leave to file a demurrer to the evidence cannot be regarded as capricious and whimsical as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[25] Courts have wide latitude for denying the filing of demurrers to evidence.[26] Indeed, an order denying a motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself is not subject to appeal or certiorari action before judgment.[27] The remedy is to assign the order of denial as an error on appeal after judgment.[28] | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We cannot agree with petitioner. As already stated, there was sufficient evidence that petitioner and Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. were one and the same entity. Moreover, we remind that a petition for the writ of certiorari neither deals with errors of judgment nor extends to a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' evidence or in the evaluation of their relative weight.[52] It is timely to remind that the petitioner in a special civil action for certiorari commenced against a trial court that has jurisdiction over the proceedings bears the burden to demonstrate not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent trial court in issuing the impugned order.[53] The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.[54] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.[55] Yet, here, petitioner did not discharge its burden because it failed to demonstrate that the CA erred in holding that the RTC had not committed grave abuse of discretion. A review of the records shows, indeed, that the RTC correctly rejected petitioner's third-party claim. Hence, the rejection did not come within the domain of the writ of certiorari's limiting requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction.[56] | |||||