This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasizing at the outset that the petitions for certiorari and prohibition petitioners filed before the CA were all anchored on the grave abuse of discretion supposedly imputable against the RTCs of Naga, Lucena and Parañaque for issuing the rulings therein assailed. Like prohibition,[43] however, the rule is settled that certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Because their function is limited to keeping inferior courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction,[44] the writs therefor may be issued only in cases of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the context of said special civil actions, it has been consistently held that grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to amount to an evasion of 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 or personal hostility.[45] | |||||