Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DENNIS T. VILLAREAL v. CONSUELO C. ALIGA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 198994 2016-02-03	IRIS MORALES v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ BRION, J.
Certiorari is a limited form of review confined to errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the officer or tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[16] As discussed, it is well within the jurisdiction of the probate court to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will if probate proceedings might become an idle ceremony due to the nullity of the will.
	GR No. 215847 2016-01-12	GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER v. COMELEC BRION, J.
An error of judgment is one that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction;[32] they only involve errors in the court or tribunal's appreciation of the facts and the law.[33] An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[34]
	GR No. 198270 2015-12-09	ARMILYN MORILLO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It may be argued, however, that the instant petition ought to be dismissed outright due to certain procedural infirmities. Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. Specifically, it shall represent the Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.[24] Thus, as a general rule, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State.[25]
	GR No. 169694 2015-12-09	MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES v. MAJESTIC FINANCE BERSAMIN, J.
By preliminarily directing the developer to provide sufficient round-the-clock security for the protection of the joint venture property during the pendency of the case, the November 5, 2002 order of the RTC did not come under the category of the status quo ante order that would issue upon equitable consideration, or even of an injunctive relief that would issue under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the issuance of the order constituted a blatant jurisdictional error that needed to be excised. Verily, a jurisdictional error is one by which the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction.[36] Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute want of jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction means that the court has jurisdiction but has transcended the same or acted without any statutory authority.[37]
	GR No. 179814 2015-12-07	WILFRED N.CHIOK v. PEOPLE JARDELEZA, J.
In Villareal v. Aliga,[43] we upheld the doctrine that it is only the OSG, as representative of the State, which may question the acquittal of the accused via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, viz:x x x The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35 (I), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and functions to represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and the CA, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. The OSG is the law office of the Government.
	GR No. 193271 2015-10-05	LOLITA M. SANTIAGO v. SILVESTRE H. BELLO IV BRION, J.
Viewed from this perspective, we find no reason to hold that Santiago's petition for certiorari before the CA was meritorious. Certiorari is a limited form of review confined to errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the officer or tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[14] As the reviewing officer, CSP Zuño's plain denial of the motion for reconsideration was within the confines of his jurisdiction.
	GR No. 205505 2015-09-29	ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO v. COMELEC EN BANC SERENO, C.J.
Consequently, the COMELEC failed to recognize that the issue on the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is integral to the issue of his qualifications to sit in Congress. This is not merely an error of law but an error of jurisdiction correctible by a writ of certiorari;[42] the COMELEC should not have encroached into the expulsion issue, as it was outside its authority to do so.
	GR No. 193681 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. PHILIP PICCIO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To expound, it is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG[26] which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before any court in any action which affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require.[27] Explicitly, Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code[28] provides that: SECTION 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. x x x. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: