G.R. No.173861 July 14, 2014 The RTC ruled that on Oct.
12, 2005, denying the
Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence. Observing JAY CANDELARIA and ERIC BASIT, Petitioners, that the motion was anchored on petitioners’ vs. alleged illegal arrest, it cited jurisprudence wherein REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 42, CITY OF it was held that any objection to an arrest must be SAN FERNANDO; (Pampanga) represented by its made before an accused enters his plea on Presiding Judge HON. MARIA AMIFAITH S. arraignment. Also, it appears from the said affidavit FIDER-REYES, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL that the search and seizure was incidental to a valid PROSECUTOR, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, warrantless arrest of the accused who were caught PAMPANGA and ALLIED DOMECQ PHILIPPINES, in flagrante delicto, any evidence obtained during INC., Respondents. such search and seizure is admissible in evidence. DEL CASTILLO, J.: Not satisfied, petitioners filed a Motion for Facts: Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in its assailed Order of July 14, 2006. In this Petition for Certiorari with Application for P.I. filed under Rule 65 of the RoC, petitioners Jay Issue: Candelaria and Eric Basit (petitioners) seek to nullify WON invoking Rule 65 in the case at bar lies. and set aside two Orders of the (RTC), Branch 42, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, to wit: Order dated Ruling: Oct 12, 2005 denying their Motion to Negative. Petition must be dismissed. Suppress/Exclude Evidence and Order dated July 14, 2006 denying their MR thereto. The SC ruled citing the case of Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank, it held that: During an alleged buy-bust operation conducted in the evening of June 22, 2001, petitioners were The writ of certiorari is restricted to truly arrested at the corner of Gueco St. and MacArthur extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower Highway, Balibago, Angeles City for delivering, with court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void. the intention to sell, five cases of counterfeit Moreover, it is designed to correct errors of Fundador Brandy. On the strength of the Joint jurisdiction and not errors in judgment. The Affidavit of the police operatives, petitioners were rationale of this rule is that, when a court exercises formally charged in an Information dated July 6, its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged 2004 with violation of Section 155 in relation to does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being Section 170 of R.A. 8293, otherwise known as the exercised when the error is committed. Otherwise, Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. After every mistake made by a court will deprive it of its they were arraigned and had pleaded not guilty to jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment will be a the charge on May 31, 2005, petitioners filed on void judgment. June 17, 2005 a Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence based on inadmissibility of evidence. They When the court has jurisdiction over the case and contended that the evidence the prosecution person of the defendant, any mistake in the intended to present were obtained in violation of application of the law and the appreciation of their constitutional right against unreasonable evidence committed by a court may be corrected searches and seizures. This is considering that at the only by appeal. The determination made by the trial time the alleged counterfeit products were seized, court regarding the admissibility of evidence is but they were neither committing nor attempting to an exercise of its jurisdiction and whatever fault it commit a crime in the presence of the arresting may have perpetrated in making such a officers as to justify the conduct of search and determination is an error in judgment, not of seizure following their unlawful arrest. jurisdiction. Hence, settled is the rule that rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and on Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of admissibility of evidence during the course of a trial Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses, are interlocutory in nature and may not be the “amending and updating the previous rules on land subject of a separate appeal or review on certiorari. use conversion. Its coverage includes the following They must be assigned as errors and reviewed in the agricultural lands, to wit: (1) those to be converted appeal properly taken from the decision rendered to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional by the trial court on the merits of the case.19 and other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such Ruling sa Book (Page 204) as livestock, poultry, and fishpond ─ the effect of Any perceived error in its interpretation of the law which is to exempt the land from the CARP and its assessment of evidence is correctible by coverage; (3) those to be converted to non- appeal, not certiorari, as the same would only be agricultural use other than that previously considered an error of judgment and not of authorized; and (4) those reclassified to residential, jurisdiction. In particular, the RTC’s denial of the commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence based on its uses on or after the effectivity of R.A. 66575. assessment that the evidence sought to be Secretary (DAR) issued another Administrative suppressed/excluded is admissible, was done in the Order, i.e., DAR AO No. 01-02, entitled "2002 proper exercise of its jurisdiction. Assuming that the Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion," RTC’s determination is erroneous, the mistake is which further amended DAR AO No. 07-97 and DAR clearly not an error of jurisdiction but of judgment AO No. 01-99, and repealed all issuances which is not correctible by certiorari. inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid DAR AO No. 01-02 covers all applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another G.R. No. 183409 June 18, 2010 agricultural use. CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS To address the unabated conversion of prime ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA), petitioner, agricultural lands for real estate development, the vs. Secretary (DAR) further issued Memorandum No. 88 THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN on 15 April 2008, which temporarily suspended the REFORM, Respondent. processing and approval of all land use conversion PEREZ, J.: applications.
Facts: By reason thereof, petitioner claims that there is an
actual slow down of housing projects, which, in turn, The Secretary (DAR) issued, on 29 Oct 1997, DAR AO aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment No. 07-97, entitled “Omnibus Rules and Procedures and illegal squatting problems to the substantial Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non- prejudice not only of the petitioner and its members Agricultural Uses,” which consolidated all existing but more so of the whole nation. implementing guidelines related to land use Issue: conversion. The aforesaid rules embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial WON there is an excess of jurisdiction in the arrangement and commodity produced, and all Memorandum Order No. 88 issued by the Secretary untitled agricultural lands and agricultural lands and of DAR. reclassified by Local Government Units (LGUs) into non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988. Ruling:
Subsequently, on 30 March 1999, the Secretary Negative. Petition must be dismissed.
(DAR) issued DAR AO No. 1-99, entitled “Revised The special civil action for certiorari is intended for G.R. No. 208587 July 29, 2015 the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave JM DOMINGUEZ AGRONOMIC COMPANY, INC., abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of HELEN D. DAGDAGAN, PATRICK PACIS, jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the KENNETH PACIS, and SHIRLEY inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction DOMINGUEZ, Petitioners, or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse vs. of discretion amounting to lack or excess of CECILIA LICLICAN, NORMA D. ISIP, and PURITA jurisdiction. DOMINGUEZ, Respondents. The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari VELASCO, JR., J.: under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or Facts: quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, During the annual stockholders meeting of or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack petitioner JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc. or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal (JMD) held on December 29, 2007 at the Baguio City or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the Country Club, the election for its new set of directors ordinary course of law. was conducted. This event was presided by then company president, and herein respondent, Cecilia In the case before this Court, the petitioner fails to Liclican, and attended by her co-respondents meet the above-mentioned requisites for the proper Norma Isip and Purita Rodriguez, and by petitioners invocation of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Helen Dagdagan, Patrick Pacis, Kenneth Pacis, and The Secretary of Agrarian Reform in issuing the Shirley Dominguez as well. assailed DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, as well as Memorandum No. 88 did so in accordance with his Conflict ensued when petitioners Patrick and mandate to implement the land use conversion Kenneth Pacis were allegedly not allowed to vote on provisions of Republic Act No. 6657. In the process, the ground that they are not registered stockholders he neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial of JMD. As pointed out, it was their mother and capacity nor assumed unto himself any performance grandmother, both deceased, who are the of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. stockholders in JMD, and that there is still no settlement of their respective estates to effectively Ruling sa Book (page 205) transfer their shares in the company to Patrick and Kenneth Pacis. Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not Tensions rose and respondents, allegedly, walked authorized and invalid with respect to the particular out of the meeting. But since the remaining proceeding, because the conditions which alone stockholders with outstanding shares constituted a authorize the exercise of the general power in quorum, the election of officers still proceeded. respect of it are wanting.31 Without jurisdiction Subsequently, JMD, represented by petitioners means lack or want of legal power, right or authority Dagdagan and Patrick Pacis, executed an Affidavit- to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered Complaint dated December 15, 2008 charging either in general or with reference to a particular respondents Liclican and Isip with qualified theft. matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Petitioners alleged in the complaint, docketed as I.S. No. 3011 with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Baguio City, that on January 2, 2008, Liclican and Isip, without any authority whatsoever, conspired to withdraw the amount of P852,024.19 from the corporation’s savings account with the Equitable- PCI Bank; and that the following day, they issued public respondent for issuance of the impugned Check No. C00024899018in the amount of order. P200,000.00, payable to cash, and to be drawn against JMD’s account with Robinson’s Savings Bank.
In a separate complaint, docketed as I.S. No. 3118,
the corporation claimed that respondents Liclican and Isip likewise issued Equitable-PCI Bank Check No. 32095311 payable to one Atty. Francisco Lava, Jr. for P200,000.00 to be debited from the corporation’s account.
Issue:
WON there was grave abuse of discretion when
Judge Tiongson-Tabora issued an order arresting respondents Isip and Liclican despite the existence of a prejudicial question.
Ruling:
Affirmative.
We have previously ruled that grave abuse of
discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. 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 word "capricious," usually used in tandem with the term "arbitrary," conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative.
Ruling sa Book (Page 206)
In a special civil action for certiorari, the petitioner
carries the burden of proving not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the