CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

Grave abuse of discretion –– A petition whosesole objective is to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code is not regarded as a valid suit; by acting upon and eventually granting the petitioner’s petition for the declaration of presumptive death, the RTC violated prevailing jurisprudence and thereby committed grave abuse of discretion. (Tadeo-Matias vs. Rep. of the Phils., G.R. No. 230751, April 25, 2018)

––      Even if petitioners’ direct resort to this Court is allowed, the dismissal of their petition remains; for certiorari to lie, it must be shown that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, or more specifically, that he exercised his power arbitrarily or despotically when he issued the omnibus order and the WPI, by reason of passion or personal hostility; and such exercise was so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform it or to act in contemplation of law; petitioners, however, failed in this respect. (Bureau of Customs vs. Hon. Gallegos, G.R. No. 220832, Feb. 28, 2018)

––      Grave abuse of discretion, under Rule 65, refers to 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; the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. (GSIS Board of Trustees vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 230953, June 20, 2018)

––      It must be emphasized that the Ombudsman itself conducted its own preliminary investigation in this case; the Ombudsman, faced with the facts and circumstances extant herein, was led to believe that (1) a crime has been committed; and (2) there is probable cause that petitioner was guilty thereof; no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman when it found probable cause to file the Information against the accused in these cases; on the basis of these findings, the Sandiganbayan cannot be said to have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petitioner’s assertion that no probable cause exists for both cases. (Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 203797-98, June 27, 2018)

––      The Court finds that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner’s Urgent Omnibus Motion/s (For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause); it is shown that the letter request and purchase request are enough to engender a well-founded belief that the crime charged may have been committed by petitioner and that any assertion by petitioner that negates the complication of the documents are matters of defense; said connections can also establish probable cause which the Sandiganbayan may disprove during the trial. (Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 203797-98, June 27, 2018)

––      There is grave abuse of discretion when an act of a court or tribunal is whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious as to amount to an “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, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility”; grave abuse of discretion was found in cases where a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. (Pasok, Jr. vs. Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao, G.R. No. 218413, June 06, 2018)

Petition for –– A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character; the special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion; certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. (Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 203797-98, June 27, 2018)

––      A judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules; if the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated. (People vs. Alejandro,G.R. No. 223099, Jan. 11, 2018)

––      A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari, the purpose of which is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case, it is not, however, an ironclad rule as it admits well-defined exceptions; one of these exceptions is where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court.(Sps. Davis vs. Sps. Davis, G.R. No. 233489, March 07, 2018)

––      A petition filed under Rule 65 is directed against any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; relief in such a petition merely takes the form of correcting any error of jurisdiction committed by the tribunal or officer; here, petitioners would want the Court to accommodate her cause of action by granting a collateral relief that is not comprehended under the provisions of Rule 65 — or any of the Rules, for that matter — which is to extend the concept of SLAPP to cases of violence against women and their children. (Mercado vs. Hon. Lopena, G.R. No. 230170, June 06, 2018)

––      A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court covers errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; errors of jurisdiction refer to acts done by the court without or in excess of its jurisdiction, and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari; 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 or hostility; the petitioner, or the BIR in this case, bears the burden to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent, absent which in the exercise of judicial power a petition for certiorari cannot prosper; in this case, the BIR was unable to show that the resolutions of the CTA-Special First Division were patent and gross to warrant striking them down through a petition for certiorari. (BIR vs. Hon. Acosta, G.R. No. 195320, April 23, 2018)

––      A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is a pleading limited to the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; its principal office is to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; burden of proof on the part of the petitioner. (Lagon vs. Hon. Velasco, G.R. No. 208424, Feb. 14, 2018)

––      A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; the existence of an appeal prohibits the parties’ resort to a petition for certiorari; the proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal; this holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. (NAPOCOR vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 206167, March 19, 2018)

––      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. (GSIS Board of Trustees vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 230953, June 20, 2018)

––      A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not be a cure for failure to timely file an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one’s own neglect or error in the choice of remedies; the general rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not interchangeable admits of exceptions: (1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of rules; respondent judge failed to substantiate through clear and well-established grounds exactly how her case warrants a deviation from the general rule. (GSIS Board of Trustees vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 230953, June 20, 2018)

––      Appeal and certiorari are two different remedies, which are generally not interchangeable, available to litigants; a party cannot substitute the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the remedy of appeal; the existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action of certiorari; remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. (Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People, G.R. No. 194214, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Certiorari, as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Dimarucot, G.R. No. 202069, March 07, 2018)

––      Certiorari under Rule 65 inherently requires the filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the opportunity given to the office to correct itself; the plain and adequate remedy referred to in Sec. 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision, which in this case, is the RTC’s omnibus order; purpose of the motion; to dispense with this requirement, there must be a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for the failure to comply with the requirement. (Bureau of Customs vs. Hon. Gallegos, G.R. No. 220832, Feb. 28, 2018)

––      Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of the judgment of a court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; it must be so grave such that the power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. (Sps. Chugani vs. Phil. Deposit Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 230037, March 19, 2018)

––      Grave abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. (Asayas vs. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 201792, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      In a Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed with the CA, the latter must limit itself to the determination of whether or not the inferior court, tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without, in excess of or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; it cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. (Bugaoisan vs. Owi Group Manila, G.R. No. 226208, Feb. 07, 2018)

––      In an action for certiorari, the primordial task of the court is to ascertain whether the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in the exercise of its judgment, such that the act was done in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner; grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. (Lara’s Gift and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB General Insurers Co., Inc., G.R. Nos. 230429-30, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      In labor cases, the issues in petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals are limited only to whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion; however, this does not mean that the Court of Appeals is conclusively bound by the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission; if the findings are arrived at arbitrarily, without resort to any substantial evidence, the National Labor Relations Commission is deemed to have gravely abused its discretion. (Hubilla vs. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co., G.R. No. 207354, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      It is well-established that as a condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari, there must be no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law; in this case, the CA correctly observed that a Rule 43 petition for review was then an available mode of appeal from the CSC resolutions; where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. (Gov. Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180845, June 06, 2018)

––      Not all errors attributed to a lower court or tribunal fall under the scope of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Cote, G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018)

––      Rule 65, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court requires that there be “no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law” available before a petition for certiorari can be filed; in labor cases, it was necessary to first file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a petition for certiorari since the National Labor Relations Commission’s rules of procedure provided for this remedy; the same rule has since applied to civil cases through Estate of Salvador Serra Serra, regardless of the absence of a provision in the Rules of Court requiring a motion for reconsideration even for interlocutory orders; thus, the general rule, in all cases, “is that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari”; there are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule, namely: “(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the Court a quo had no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.” (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200678, June 04, 2018)

––      Shall be dismissed where the resolution thereof requires the consideration and evaluation of evidentiary matters. (Trillanes IV vs. Hon. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018)

––      The extraordinary remedies of certiorari and prohibition are resorted to only where: (a) a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (b) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; exceptions to the aforementioned rule, namely: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. (Career Exec. Service Board vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 196890, Jan. 11, 2018)

––      The general rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not interchangeable admits exceptions; the remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution; recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy; nonetheless, there are exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. (Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People, G.R. No. 194214, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      The grave abuse of discretion contemplated by law involves a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; an action for certiorari does not correct errors of judgment but only errors of jurisdiction; the nature of a Rule 65 petition does not entail a review of facts and law on the merits in the manner done in an appeal; misapplication of facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions based on evidence do not, by the mere fact that errors were committed, rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion. (People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 228494-96, March 21, 2018)

––      The NEA has no standing to file a petition for review on certiorari of a CA case nullifying its decision for grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; Barillo v. Lantion, cited; when Sec. 5 of Rule 65 speaks of public respondent as a nominal party, it makes no distinction; it refers to all classes of persons and instrumentalities that may become a respondent in a certiorari action, specifically any “judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person”; a public respondent judge elevating an adverse ruling through an appeal under Rule 45 is covered by the provision. (Nat’l. Electrification Administration (NEA) vs. Maguindanao Electric Coop., Inc., G.R. Nos. 192595-96, April 11, 2018)

––      The Petition is dismissible for failure to include a statement of material dates in violation of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 3 of Rule 46; Rule 46 provides that the following material dates must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65: (a) the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; (b) the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and (c) the date when notice of the denial thereof was received; the petitioner’s failure to comply with said requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition; purpose; a petition for certiorari or prohibition must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. (Mercado vs. Hon. Lopena, G.R. No. 230170, June 06, 2018)

––      The Rules of Court categorically provide that petitions for certiorari involving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency “shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals”; any petition for certiorari against an act or omission of Bangko Sentral, when it acts through the Monetary Board, must be filed with the Court of Appeals. (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200678, June 04, 2018)

––      The term grave abuse of discretion pertains to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment 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, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. (Lagon vs. Hon. Velasco, G.R. No. 208424, Feb. 14, 2018)

––      Under Sec. 4 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in the Laguna Metts Corporation case, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment; exceptions to the strict application of this rule, laid down in Labao v. Flores; in the motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari, it was stated that Gabriel had since been working and living in Australia for a few years subsequent to his separation from Petron; unlike those exceptions when the period to file a petition for certiorari was not strictly applied, we do not find Gabriel’s reason to meet the deadline compelling; the rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice; here, we cannot simply reward the lack of foresight on the part of Gabriel and his lawyer. (Gabriel vs. Petron Corp., G.R. No. 194575, April 11, 2018)

Requisites –– Certiorari proceedings are limited in scope and narrow in character because they only correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion; relief in a special civil action for certiorari is available only when the following essential requisites concur: (a) the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction; and (c) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; it will issue to correct errors of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment, particularly in the findings or conclusions of the quasi-judicial tribunals (such as the NLRC); accordingly, when a petition for certiorari is filed, the judicial inquiry should be limited to the issue of whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. (Gabriel vs. Petron Corp., G.R. No. 194575, April 11, 2018)

Writ of –– The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule and the Supreme Court has allowed a direct application for a writ of certiorari when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. (Trillanes IV vs. Hon. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018)

CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

Writs of –– The Court shares the jurisdiction over petitions for these extraordinary writs with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts; the hierarchy of courts serves as the general determinant of the appropriate forum for such petitions. (Trillanes IV vs. Hon. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018)

––      The established policy is that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals, and a direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. (Trillanes IV vs. Hon. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018)

CERTIORARI OR PROHIBITION

Grave abuse of discretion –– By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; the abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and 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 by or to act at all in contemplation of law; the burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. (Career Executive Service Board vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 212348, June 19, 2018)

Petition for –– For a petition for certiorari or prohibition to prosper, the Rules require that there be no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law; here, the cases before the public respondents are still pending. (Mercado vs. Hon. Lopena, G.R. No. 230170, June 06, 2018)

Writs of –– The writs of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 are extraordinary remedies that may be availed of when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the term grave abuse of discretion connotes capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or a lack of jurisdiction; explained. (Mercado vs. Hon. Lopena, G.R. No. 230170, June 06, 2018)

Source:  Supreme Court of the Philippines - Case Index