Lawyerly

GR No. 155580

2015-07-01

BERSAMIN, J.

It is obvious that all that the petitioner wants the Court to do is to revisit and review the facts and records supposedly substantiating his claim of tenancy and his demand for consequential disturbance compensation. He has not thereby raised any jurisdictional error by the CA, and has not shown how the CA capriciously or whimsically exercised its judgment as to be guilty of gravely abusing its discretion. It is not amiss to point out that the settled meaning of grave abuse of discretion is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.[20] In that regard, the abuse of discretion must be shown to be patent and gross in order for the act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion.[21] Yet, none of such categories characterized the act of the CA.

GR No. 197590

2014-11-24

BIR v. CA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Indeed, the remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision, final order, or resolution of the CA is to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[58] And as a rule, if the remedy of an appeal is available, an action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is an original or independent action based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, will not prosper[59] because it is not a substitute for a lost appeal.[60]

GR No. 189629

2014-08-06

DR. PHYLIS C. RIO v. COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA-MAKATI

PEREZ, J.

Our discussion on the meaning of grave abuse of discretion in Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio[12] citing Beluso v. Commission on Elections[13] and J.L. Bernardo Construction v. CA[14] is instructive: The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to 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 and hostility." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x.

GR No. 207264

2013-06-25

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC

PEREZ, J.

Time and again, We emphasize that the "grave abuse of discretion" which warrants this Court's exercise of certiorari jurisdiction has a well-defined meaning. Guidance is found in Beluso v. Commission on Elections[39] where the Court held: x x x A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 194104

2013-03-13

NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

MENDOZA, J.

At any rate, even if the Court allows the premature recourse to certiorari without the petitioner having filed a motion for reconsideration in the trial court, the petition would still fail. Nothing is more settled than the principle that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," as contemplated by the Rules of Court, is "the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power" that is so patent and gross that it "amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law."[29] Such capricious, whimsical and arbitrary acts must be apparent on the face of the assailed order.[30] The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the RTC issued its June 22, 2010 Order with grave abuse of discretion. This petitioner failed to do.

GR No. 174937

2012-06-13

JOVINA DABON VDA. DE MENDEZ v. CA AND SPS. MINEO AND TRINIDAD B. DABON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Unlike a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent action[44] based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[45] It will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[46] As such, it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was due to one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[47]

GR No. 189151

2012-01-25

SPS. DAVID BERGONIA v. CA

REYES, J.

Even if we are to assume arguendo that the petitioners' resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper, the instant petition would still be denied. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist.[16] The abuse of discretion must be 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 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.[17] Here, there was no hint of whimsicality or gross and patent abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it dismissed the appeal of the petitioners for the failure of the latter to file their appellants' brief.

GR No. 168120

2012-01-25

MANSION PRINTING CENTER v. DIOSDADO BITARA

PEREZ, J.

xxx The raison d'etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. xxx Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. xxx[33]

GR No. 189207

2011-06-15

ERIC U. YU v. JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO

VELASCO JR., J.

The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." [15] The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to 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 and hostility." [16] Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." [17] From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. [18] But this is not the case here.

GR No. 177190

2011-02-23

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

VELASCO JR., J.

A special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65, is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.[25] x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

	GR No. 155580 2015-07-01	ROMEO T. CALUZOR v. DEOGRACIAS LLANILLO BERSAMIN, J.
It is obvious that all that the petitioner wants the Court to do is to revisit and review the facts and records supposedly substantiating his claim of tenancy and his demand for consequential disturbance compensation. He has not thereby raised any jurisdictional error by the CA, and has not shown how the CA capriciously or whimsically exercised its judgment as to be guilty of gravely abusing its discretion. It is not amiss to point out that the settled meaning of grave abuse of discretion is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.[20] In that regard, the abuse of discretion must be shown to be patent and gross in order for the act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion.[21] Yet, none of such categories characterized the act of the CA.
	GR No. 197590 2014-11-24	BIR v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, the remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision, final order, or resolution of the CA is to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[58] And as a rule, if the remedy of an appeal is available, an action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is an original or independent action based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, will not prosper[59] because it is not a substitute for a lost appeal.[60]
	GR No. 189629 2014-08-06	DR. PHYLIS C. RIO v. COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA-MAKATI PEREZ, J.
Our discussion on the meaning of grave abuse of discretion in Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio[12] citing Beluso v. Commission on Elections[13] and J.L. Bernardo Construction v. CA[14] is instructive: The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to 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 and hostility." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x.
	GR No. 207264 2013-06-25	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
Time and again, We emphasize that the "grave abuse of discretion" which warrants this Court's exercise of certiorari jurisdiction has a well-defined meaning. Guidance is found in Beluso v. Commission on Elections[39] where the Court held: x x x A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 194104 2013-03-13	NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK MENDOZA, J.
At any rate, even if the Court allows the premature recourse to certiorari without the petitioner having filed a motion for reconsideration in the trial court, the petition would still fail. Nothing is more settled than the principle that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," as contemplated by the Rules of Court, is "the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power" that is so patent and gross that it "amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law."[29] Such capricious, whimsical and arbitrary acts must be apparent on the face of the assailed order.[30] The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the RTC issued its June 22, 2010 Order with grave abuse of discretion. This petitioner failed to do.
	GR No. 174937 2012-06-13	JOVINA DABON VDA. DE MENDEZ v. CA AND SPS. MINEO AND TRINIDAD B. DABON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Unlike a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent action[44] based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[45] It will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[46] As such, it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was due to one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[47]
	GR No. 189151 2012-01-25	SPS. DAVID BERGONIA v. CA REYES, J.
Even if we are to assume arguendo that the petitioners' resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper, the instant petition would still be denied. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist.[16] The abuse of discretion must be 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 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.[17] Here, there was no hint of whimsicality or gross and patent abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it dismissed the appeal of the petitioners for the failure of the latter to file their appellants' brief.
	GR No. 168120 2012-01-25	MANSION PRINTING CENTER v. DIOSDADO BITARA PEREZ, J.
xxx The raison d'etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. xxx Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. xxx[33]
	GR No. 189207 2011-06-15	ERIC U. YU v. JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO VELASCO JR., J.
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." [15] The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to 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 and hostility." [16] Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." [17] From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. [18] But this is not the case here.
	GR No. 177190 2011-02-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN VELASCO JR., J.
A special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65, is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.[25] x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

RUDOLFO I. BELUSO v. COMELEC