This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-12-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| There is grave abuse of discretion where the acts complained of amount to an evasion of 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 reasons of passion or personal hostility.[15] It is such whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2004-08-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court -- on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision.[36] Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.[37] Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact -- a mistake of judgment -- appeal is the remedy. [38] | |||||