This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| After respondent rested his case, the defense presented and marked their documentary exhibits of Tax Declaration No. 30235 issued in the name of the late Claro Oñate, which was cancelled in 1938; Tax Declaration 31954,[26] which cancelled Tax Declaration No. 30235, in the name of Municipality of Daraga with the annotation of Ex-Officio Deputy Assessor Natalio Grageda attesting to the purchase by the Municipality under Municipal Voucher No. 69, August 1940 accounts and the issuance of TCT No. 4812 in favor of the Municipality; Tax Declaration No. 8926[27] in the name of the Municipality which cancelled Tax Declaration No. 31954; and the subsequent Tax Declaration Nos. 22184,[28] 332,[29] and 04-006-00068.[30] | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As earlier discussed, however, this mitigation is subject to the discretion of the court, depending on what is equitable under the circumstances. It would have been within this Court's power to mitigate the moral and exemplary damages for which petitioner Ong is liable if she had only filed an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It would be an exaggeration to consider such non-mitigation by the Court of Appeals as grave abuse of discretion leading to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, which would have been reviewable by this Court in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65.[57] Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, 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 positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[58] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough -- it must be grave.[59] | |||||
|
2005-06-21 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.[14] Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious, whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. An error of judgment committed in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the special writ of certiorari is not the remedy for errors of judgment that can be corrected by appeal.[15] | |||||