Bachelor of Laws-III
Special Civil Action
CASE DIGEST
Facts:
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.
Issues:
Ruling:
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.
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
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
requirements?
2. What is the proper remedy to assail a judgment of acquittal?
Ruling:
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.
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
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.
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it noted the
petition.
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
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
judgment.
8. Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems vs. NLRC (GR. NO. 157900)
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding the NLRC did not
act with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling: