Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Tormis, Crystha Joyce Marie S.

Bachelor of Laws-III
Special Civil Action


1. Rebecca Pacaa vs. Rovila Water Supply (GR No. 168979)


The petitioners claimed that their family has long been known in the
community to be engaged in water supply business; they operated the
Rovila Water Supply. The petitioners alleged that Lilia was a former trusted
employee in the family business who hid business records and ransacked the
family files. She allegedly barred the members of the Pacaa family from
operating their business and she claims ownership over it. The respondents
allegedly used the name of Lourdes as one of the incorporators and made it
appear in the SEC documents that the family business was operated in a
place other than the Pacaa residence. They also fraudulently appropriated
the collections and payments.

The petitioners filed the complaint in their own names although Rosalie
was authorized by Lourdes through a sworn declaration and SPA. On
September 26, 2000, Lourdes died and the petitioners amended their
complaint and on the following month Luciano also died. Since Lourdes and
Luciano died the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
petitioners are not the real parties in interest to institute and prosecute the
case however it was denied, hence, the respondents filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 invoking grave abuse of discretion in the denial of
their motion to dismiss.


Whether or not Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a proper remedy for

denial of a motion to dismiss.


Yes, Rule 65 is a proper remedy for a denial of a motion to dismiss

attended with grave abuse of discretion.

In Barrazona vs. RTC, the Court held that while an order denying a
motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari and
prohibition are proper remedies to address an order of denial made without or
in excess of jurisdiction. The writ of certiorari is granted to keep an inferior
court within bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing grave
abuse of dicretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

2. Arnold James Ysidoro vs. Hon. Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro

(GR. No. 171513)


Arnold Ysidoro was the Municipal Mayor of Leyte in such capacity

committed the offense in relation to his office withhold and fail to give Nierna
S. Doller, Municipal Social Welfare and Development Officer of Leyte her RATA
for the months of August, Spetember, October, November and December and
the accused also deprived the complainant of her Productivity Pay.

On motion of the prosecution, the Sandiganbayan preventively

suspended Ysidoro for ninety (90) days in accordance with Section 13 of R.A.
No. 3019. However, in a decision dated October 1, 2009 the Sandiganbayan
aquitted Ysidoro and held that the second element of the offense that there
be malice, ill-motive or bad faith was not present.

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion and

exceeded its, or acted without, jurisdiction when it acquitted Ysidoro of the
crime charged.


Our consideration of the imputed errors fails to establish grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the
Sandiganbayan. As a rule, 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. That an abuse
itself must be grave must be amply demonstrated since the jurisdiction of the
court, no less, will be affected. We have previously held that the mere fact,
too, that a court erroneously decides a case does not necessarily deprive it of

Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise

of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Under this definition, the
People bear the burden of convincingly demonstrating that the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in the appreciation of the
evidence. We find the People failed in this regard.

3. Dennis T. Villareal vs. Conseulo C. Aliga (GR No. 166995)


Dennis T. Villareal was the President and General Manager of Dentrade

Corporation while Consuelo Aliga was one of the accounting clerks. Consuelo
has custody of the personal checks of Villareal. She prepared the personal
checks by typing its contents and submits them to Villareal for his signature.
After the signed checks are delivered to her, she in turn, gives the checks to
the messenger for encashment with the bank. Being the accountant of the
accused and who has access to the companys checking accounts she
willfully and unlawfully with grave abuse of confidence, with intent to gain
and without the consent of the owner take, steal and carry away from the
complainants office, United Coconut Planters Bank Check and falsify the
amount by changing the amount of P5,000.00 to P65,000.00 thereafter
misappropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit the amount
of P60,000.00. The Regional Trial Court of Makati acquitted respondent Aliga
from the offense charged.


1. May the complainant file a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 upon the acquittal of the accused? If so, what is/are the
2. What is the proper remedy to assail a judgment of acquittal?


In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court wherein it alleged that the trial court committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filled by the
person aggrieved, In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and
the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an
interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil
action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on
jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the complainant should not bring the
action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be
prosecuted in the name of said complainant.

In the case at bar, the petition filed essentially assails the criminal, not
the civil aspect of the CA decision. It must even be stressed that petitioner
never challenged before the CA, and in this Court, the RTC judgment which
absolved respondent Aliga from civil liability in view of the return of
60,000.00 subject matter of the offense on October 30, 1996. Therefore, the
petition should have been filed only by the State through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG). Petitioner lacks the personality or legal standing to
question the CA decision because it is only OFG which can bring actions on
behalf of the State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and CA.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and not a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The people may assail a
judgment of the acquittal only via 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.

4. Malayang Manggawa Ng Stayfast Phils. Inc. vs. NLRC (GR No.



Petitioner and Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Stayfast (NLSM-

Olalia) sought to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the respondent
company, Stayfast Corporation. A certification election was conducted on
December 29, 1995. Out of 223 valid votes cast, petitioner garnered 109
votes while NLSM-Olalia received 112 votes and 2 votes were for No Union.
NLSM-Olalia was declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the

Pettioner appealed to the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary of Labor and

Employment. The Sec. of Labor and Employment set aside the order of the
Med-Arbiter and called for run-off election. On motion of NLSM-Olalia, the Sec.
of Labor and Employment reconsidered the earlier decision and restored the
Med-Arbiters decision. The case was elevated to the NLRC however it was
dismissed and the petitioner declared a sit-down strike. The petitioner filed
a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals against the NLRC for it
allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion, however, the CA ruled that
the NLRC resolution was supported by justifiable reason and cannot be
faulted with grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the petitioner files a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.


Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.


The petitioner was not able to establish its allegation of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Where a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion, the
petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its
jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. This is so because
grave abuse of discretion is well-defined and not an amorphous concept
that may be manipulated to suit ones purpose.

In this case, Petitioner failed to substantiate its imputation of grave

abuse of discretion on the part of CA. No argument was advanced to show
that the CA exercised its judgment capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily or
despotically by reason of passion and hostility. It did not even discuss how or
why the conclusion of Court of Appeals was made with grave abuse of
discretion. Thus, petitioner failed in its duty to demonstrate with definiteness
the grave abuse of discretion.
5. Thenamaris Philippines Inc. Et. Al. vs. Court of Appeals (GR
NO. 191215)


Private respondent is the widow of seafarer Guillermo M. Mendigorin

who was employed by Thenamaris for 27 years as an oiler and eventually, as
second engineer in the latters vessels. Guillermo was diagnosed with and
died of colon cancer during the term of employment contract between him
and Thenamaris. The respondent filed a claim against the Labor Arbiter and it
was granted. On appeal to the NLRC, the Labor Arbiters decision was
reversed and private respondent moved for the reconsideration, however,
was denied for lack of merit. Upon receiving the resolution of the NLRC, sixty-
two days after, the respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file a
petition for certiorari before the court of appeals. They filed the motion for
extension since her counsel was saddled and occupied with equally important
cases, it would be impossible for him to file the petition on time. The Court of
Appeals entertained the petition and noted that the petition was filed 15 days
late and suffers from procedural infirmities.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it noted the


The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it

extended underserved and unwarranted liberality to private respondent.
There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty
or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in
contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based in law and
evidence but in caprice whim and despotism x x x. Such is present here as
shown by the CAs obstinate refusal to dismiss the case despite the late filing
of the motion for extension and the flimsy excuse for the extension sought,
the late filing of the petition and the numerous infirmities attending the same
and the private respondents propensity to disregard the very rules that the
courts, the litigants and the lawyers are duty-bound to follow.

6. Philippine Postal Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (GR No.



De Guzman, Postal Inspector at the Postal Services Office, was

investigated by Regional Postal Inspector Atty. Raul Q. Buensalida in view of
an anonymous complaint charging him of dishonesty and conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. As a result, Atty. Buensalida
commended that De Guzman be formally charged with twelve (12) counts of
the same offense and be relieved from his post. When Atty. Buensalidas
investigation was forwarded to Investigation Security and Law Enforcement
Staff (ISLES), De Guzman was exonerated from the charges against him due
to lack of merit.

On February 6, 1992, Republic Act No. 7354 otherwise known as the

Postal Service Act was passed, pursuant to this law, the Postal Services
Office under DOTC was abolished and all its powers, duties and rights were
transferred to the PPC. De Guzman was formally charged and was found
guilty by the PPC for the same acts of dishonesty, gross violation of
regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The
decision was not implemented until five (5) years later. De Guzman lost no
time in filing a motion for reconsideration. The motion was however denied
due to De Guzmans failure to produce a copy of the alleged recall order.

Undaunted, De Guzman filed a second motion for reconsideration to

the PPC and resolved that De Guzman is guilty of the charges against him
and dismissing him from office. De Guzman filed again his third motion for
reconsideration however only one of such motion was entertained since the
third motion for reconsideration was in gross violation of the rules of
procedure of PPC and Civil Service Commission. De Guzman elevated the
case to the Court of Appeals via an ordinary appeal and after 4 months he
filed a special civil action and mandamus imputing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.


Whether or not De Guzman is guilty of forum shopping for filing an

ordinary appeal and petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.


The successive filing of notice of appeal and petition for certiorari both
to assail the trial courts dismissal order for non-suit constitute forum
shopping. Forum shopping has been defined as filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining favorable

Ineluctably, the petitioner, by filing an ordinary appeal and petition for

certiorari with the CA, engaged in forum shopping. When the petitioner
commenced the appeal, only four (4) months had elapsed prior to her filing
with the CA the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and which eventually
came up to this Court by way of the instant Petition. As the CA, through its
Thirteenth Division, correctly noted, both suits are founded on exactly the
same facts and refer to the same subject matter.

The remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually

exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. The petitioner cannot hedge her
case by wagering two or more appeals and in the event that the ordinary
appeal lags significantly behind the others, she cannot post facto validate
this circumstance as a demonstration that the ordinary appeal had not been
speedy or adequate enough, in order to justify the recourse to Rule 65.

7. SC Decision on the Marcos Burial Petitions

8. Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems vs. NLRC (GR. NO. 157900)


San Miguel brought a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal

dismissal, non-payment of salaries and moral damages against petitioner
formerly known as Zeta Brokerage Corporation. He alleged that he had been
a checker/customs representative of Zeta since December 16, 1985; that in
January 1994, he and other employees of Zeta were informed that Zeta would
cease operations, and that a;; affected employees, including him, would be
separated; Zeta informed him of his termination and he reluctantly accepted
his separation pay subject to the standing offer to be hired to his former
position by petitioner; and that on April 15, 1994, he was summarily
terminated, without any valid cause and due process.

San Miguel contended that the amendments of the articles of

incorporation of Zeta were purpose of changing the corporate name,
broadening the primary functions, and increasing the capital stock; and that
such amendment could not mean that Zeta had been thereby dissolved. On
its part, petitioner countered that San Miguels termination from Zeta had
been for a cause authorized by the Labor Code.

In the decision of the Labor Arbiter, it rendered a decision holding that

San Miguel had been illegally dismissed. Petitioner appealed but the NLRC
issued a resolution affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter, however, it
later denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals imputing the NLRC with grace
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. On November
6, 2002, the CA promulgated its assailed decision and finds the resolutions of
public respondent NLRC are supported by laws and jurisprudence.


Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding the NLRC did not
act with grave abuse of discretion.


In a special civil action for certiorari brought against a court or quasi-

judicial body with jurisdiction over a case, petitioner carries the burden of
proving that the court or quasi-judicial body committed not a merely
reversible error but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order. Showing a mere abuse of
discretion is not enough, for it is necessary to demonstrate that the abuse
was grave. Under the circumstances, the CA committed no abuse of
discretion, least of all grave, because its justifications were supported by the
records and by applicable laws and jurisprudence.