This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-08-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[43] While it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce, when said decisions and orders are tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion, the Courts are duty-bound to entertain petitions questioning the former's rulings or actions.[44] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decision. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[28] It exists where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[29] It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[30] No abuse, much less grave abuse, attended the Court of Appeals' judgment in these cases. | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| (11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.[14] Thus, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1,[15] Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, we have held that while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[16] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, a statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution should be liberally construed for the advancement of the purposes and objectives for which it was created.[47] Yet, the Ombudsman would be severely hampered from exercising his power of control if we are to allow the Special Prosecutor to authorize the filing of informations in the first instance. This is because while the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed, without the approval of the said court.[48] | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, we have consistently ruled that unless there are good and compelling reasons, we cannot interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigating and prosecutory powers. Without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise, the Court cannot freely interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he finds it to be insufficient in form or substance or if he otherwise finds no ground to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if the complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form.[18] However, while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing his action when there is an abuse of discretion, by way of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[19] | |||||
|
2006-05-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to 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 reason of passion or hostility.[16] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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 reason of passion or hostility.[16] Ombudsman Desierto, in this case, committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner attributes partiality on the part of Ombudsman Desierto for having participated in the reinvestigation of the instant case despite the fact that he earlier participated in the initial | |||||