Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Provrem Digests 2018-09-07
Provrem Digests 2018-09-07
Principle:
JURISDICTIONAL, QUESTION; MEANING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Whether or not the
grounds alleged by the provincial fiscal in his motion for reconsideration seeking
relief from the effects of the compromise and from the judgment rendered thereon
are or are not sufficient, is not a question of jurisdiction but one of judgment
which we do not decide here. No abuse of discretion is shown by the petitioners,
and by abuse of discretion we mean such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Facts:
Province of Tarlac condemned parcels of land for construction of Capas-Murcia road,
then a compromise was entered with petitioners. Judge approved the compromise.
However, the provincial fisca, moved for reconsideration by reason of mistaken
belief in prices fixed by the appraisal committee. Judge acceded the motion and set
aside decision. Petitioners contend that judge was w/o power to set aside decision
being final.
Question:
Was there grave abuse of discretion by the judge?
Answer:
No.
It is not claimed that the judgment in question has become final. In fact, it
cannot be so claimed because the fiscal's motion for reconsideration thereof was
presented five days after its rendition. Not having become final, the lower court
has plenary control over it and can modify or set it aside as law and justice
require.
Whether or not the grounds alleged by the provincial fiscal in his motion for
reconsideration seeking relief from the effect of the compromise and the from the
judgment rendered thereon are or are not sufficient, is not a question of
jurisdiction but one of judgment which we do not decide here. No abuse of
discretion is shown by the petitioners.
LONG VERSION
Facts:
Obrien filed an action against Leung Ben in the CFI of manila, to recover the sum
of 15,000 alleged to have been lost through gambling. Plaintiff asked fro an
attachment on the ground that the latter was about to depart the Phils with intent
to defraud creditors. Attachment was issued. Defendant thereupon moved to quash
attachment but was dismissed, the petitioner Leung Ben, presented to court his
petition for the writ of certiorari directed against O'Brien and Judge Ostrand and
that the order of attachment issued should be revoked.
The provision of law under which this attachment was issued requires that there
should be a cause of action arising upon contract, express or implied. The
contention of the petitioner is that the statutory action to recover money lost at
gaming is no such an action as is contemplated in this provision, and he therefore
insists that the original complaint shows on its face that the remedy of attachment
is not available in aid thereof; that the Court of First Instance acted in excess
of its jurisdiction in granting the writ of attachment; that the petitioner has no
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise; and that consequently
the writ of certiorari supplies the appropriate remedy for his relief.
Question:
Supposing that the Court of First Instance has granted an attachment for which
there is no statutory authority, can this court grant certiorari?
Answer:
YES.
Under section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction by the writ of certiorari over the proceedings of Courts of First
Instance, wherever said courts have exceeded their jurisdiction and there is no
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
SHORT VERSION
Facts:
X filed an action for sum of money for money lost due to gaming, with preliminary
attachment against Y. Y moved to quash attachment but was dismissed by Judge Z. Y
presented to court petition for writ of certiorari directed to Judge Z and that the
order of attachment should be revoked. The contention of the petitioner is that the
statutory action to recover money lost at gaming has no such contemplated
provision; that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in
granting the writ of attachment; that he, as petitioner, has no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise;
Question:
Supposing that the Court of First Instance has granted an attachment for which
there is no statutory authority, can this court grant certiorari?
Answer:
YES.
In the present case, the cause of action stated in the complaints in the court
below is based on a contract, express or implied and is therefore of such nature
that the court had authority to issue writ of attachment but it will be said that
the writ of certiorari is not available in this cae, because the petitioner is
protected by the attachment bond, and that he has a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy appeal.
Question:
Should the certiorari not be issued upon the petition in the case despite the facts
stated in the petition are sufficient to issue the certiorari?
Answer:
No.
We have held in numerous cases that a writ of certiorari will not be issued unless
it clearly appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in performing the acts complained of. We have also held that
if a court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, decision upon
all question pertinent to the cause are decisions which its jurisdiction and
however irregular or erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari.
It may be stated as a general rule that the decision by a court of one of the
fundamental question before it does not deprive it of jurisdiction whichever way it
may decide. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right
to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend
either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness
of the decision made.
The facts that the complaint in the justice's court appeared somewhat like a
complaint in ejectment, and that the judgment of the justice's court took on also
something of the color of a judgment in such an action; and the fact that such
judgment contains some provisions which a justice's court is perhaps without
authority to insert in its judgments is of no particular consequence in the
proceeding before us. If the judgment of the justice's court was void, it was
nevertheless appealable, although the losing party might have been able to rid
himself of it by other means. Having been appealed, it stands upon substantially
the same footing in the appellate court, so far as the appeal itself is concerned,
as any other judgment of a justice's court and the jurisdiction of the appellate
court in that appeal is as full and complete as it is in any other.
SHORT VERSION
If the judgment of the justice's court was void, it was nevertheless appealable,
although the losing party might have been able to rid himself of it by other means.
Having been appealed, it stands upon substantially the same footing in the
appellate court, so far as the appeal itself is concerned, as any other judgment of
a justice's court and the jurisdiction of the appellate court in that appeal is as
full and complete as it is any other.
Facts:
An action for the summary recovery of the possession of land against the X was
filed by Y, defendants. The court ruled in favor of X. Y appealed to the CFI but a
motion was made by the appellee to dismiss appeal which was granted as well. This
is of purpose to obtain a writ of certiorari for the revision of the record of the
court, revocation of judgment, and set aside the whole proceeding.
Question:
Should the certiorari not be issued upon the petition in the case despite the facts
stated in the petition are sufficient to issue the certiorari?
Answer:
No.
We have held in numerous cases that a writ of certiorari will not be issued unless
it clearly appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in performing the acts complained of. We have also held that
if a court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, decision upon
all question pertinent to the cause are decisions which its jurisdiction and
however irregular or erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by
certiorari.It may be stated as a general rule that the decision by a court of one
of the fundamental question before it does not deprive it of jurisdiction whichever
way it may decide. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause, the
right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not
depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the
rightfulness of the decision made.
In this case, the facts that the complaint in the justice's court appeared somewhat
like a complaint in ejectment, and that the judgment of the justice's court took on
also something of the color of a judgment in such an action; If the judgment of the
justice's court was void, it was nevertheless appealable, although the losing party
might have been able to rid himself of it by other means. Having been appealed, it
stands upon substantially the same footing in the appellate court as any other
judgment of a justice's court and the jurisdiction of the appellate court in that
appeal is as full and complete as it is in any other.
Spouses Dionisio filed with the MeTC a complaint against San Pedro for Accion
Reivindicatoria, quieting of title and damages. Dionisio alleged that subject
property was titled under their name but petitioners with malice claimed the land
as their own. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that MeTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the subject was incapable
of pecuniary estimation. MeTC denied the motion, ruling that it had original
jurisdiction over actions involving possession of real property of small value.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said order was denied. Petitioners
assailed the aforementioned Order by filing a petition for certiorari with the RTC
but was denied again. Petitioners then filed with the CA another petitioner for
certiorari, insisting that both the MeTC and RTC acted with grave abuse by not
ordering the dismissal of complaint Accion Reivindicatoria, for lack of
jurisdiction.
Question:
Did the CA acted with grave abuse of jurisdiction in denying the petition for
certiorari?
Answer:
No.
The settled rule is that appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of
the CA should be by a verified petition for review on certiorari, as provided for
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The aggrieved party is
proscribed from assailing a decision or final order of the CA via Rule 65, because
such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the course of law. In this case, petitioner had an adequate remedy, namely, a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A petition
for review on certiorari, not a special civil action for certiorari was, therefore,
the correct remedy.
The CA, therefore, acted properly when it dismissed the petition for certiorari
outright, on the ground that petitioners should have resorted to the remedy of
appeal instead of certiorari. Verily, the present Petition for Certiorari should
not have been given due course at all.
SHORT VERSION
Facts:
X filed with the MeTC a complaint against Y for Accion Reivindicatoria, quieting of
title and damages. X alleged that subject property was titled under their name but
petitioners with malice claimed the land as their own. X filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that MeTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
as the subject was incapable of pecuniary estimation. MeTC denied the motion,
ruling that it had original jurisdiction over actions involving possession of real
property of small value. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said order was
denied. Petitioners assailed the aforementioned Order by filing a petition for
certiorari with the RTC but was denied again. Petitioners then filed with the CA
another petitioner for certiorari, insisting that both the MeTC and RTC acted with
grave abuse by not ordering the dismissal of complaint Accion Reivindicatoria, for
lack of jurisdiction.
Question:
Did the CA acted with grave abuse of jurisdiction in denying the petition for
certiorari?
Answer:
No.
The settled rule is that appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of
the CA should be by a verified petition for review on certiorari, as provided for
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The aggrieved party is
proscribed from assailing a decision or final order of the CA via Rule 65, because
such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the course of law.
In this case, petitioner had an adequate remedy, namely, a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A petition for review on
certiorari, not a special civil action for certiorari was, therefore, the correct
remedy. The CA, therefore, acted properly when it dismissed the petition for
certiorari outright, on the ground that petitioners should have resorted to the
remedy of appeal instead of certiorari. Verily, the present Petition for Certiorari
should not have been given due course at all.
### Camutin v. Spouses Potente, G.R. No. 181642, January 29, 2009 NOTE: cannot be
shortened, the facts are single sentences of inter-connected events.
Facts:
Petitioners were registered owners of parcels of land who resided abroad. Coming
back to the Philippines, they discovered that the house and warehouse of Potente
were erected on their lots. Respondents agreed to pay rents to their lots but
respondents failed and refused to pay the agreed rentals. Camutin filed a complaint
for partition against petitioners in the RTC. For continued refusal to vacate the
property, petitioners filed complaint to the barangay to have respondents removed.
During the brgy conference, parties agreed to wait for the outcome of the RTC.
Petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the MTC. The MTC
summoned the Lupong Tagapamayapa, and clarified that the agreement was only for the
waiting of the result of the RTC's case.
Apparently, MTC erroneously interpreted the brgy agreement as amicable settlement
and ordered a writ of execution ordering the ejectment case suspended until final
resolution of RTC case. MTC also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed a petitioner for certiorari under Rule 65 with the RTC, but
was dismissed due to certiorari as a prohibited pleading in this case.
Question:
Did the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari?
Answer:
No.
Petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. Since the assailed order was rendered by
the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, respondents argue that the
correct mode of review is an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Sec. 2(a), Rule
41 of the Rules of Court.