GR.No.

G.R.No.134932.

Title
Beso
Aballe

vs.

Date
February 18,
2000

G.R.No.132810.

Bermudez vs
Gonzales

December 11,
2000

G.R.No.157752.

MiguelvsJCT
Group

March 16,
2005

QuestionedJudgment
ABALLE has appealed to the
COMELEC from the decision in
ElectionProtestCaseNo.30ofthe
MTCC,byfilingaNoticeofAppeal
on22January1998,andsubmitting
at the same time the postal money
ordersfortheappealfees,itfollows
that the COMELEC has primary
jurisdiction on the petition for
certiorari to annul the executiono
pending appeal granted by the
MTCC, however, despite such fact
RTCJudgeNavidadentertainedthe
petitionfiledbyABALLE,acspecial
civil action for certiorari and
prohibition,withanurgentprayerfor
the issuance of a temporary
restraining order or writ of
preliminaryinjunction
On 4 May 1998, Judge Navidad
issued an Order extending the
Temporary Restraining Order "for
twenty(20)days
the trial court issued a writ of
demolition without allowing the
petitioner to present evidence on
when was the house subject to the
writofdemolitionbuilt,becausethe
trialcourtsawthatthereisnoneed
for the said presentation since it
merelyimplementingthedecisionof
theSCwithregardstotheownerof
theland.

The following observations of the

appellate court are in point:
o In finding for [petitioners], the labor
arbiter considered them regular
employees for the reason that they
performed duties, responsibilities

ActsconstitutingGraveAbuseofDiscretion
respondentJudgeNavidadactedwithoutjurisdiction,and
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when he entertained the petition in Special
CivilActionNo.98040,issuedaTemporaryRestraining
Orderthereonand,ultimately,givingduecoursetothe
petitionanddecidingitonitsmeritsbysettingasideand
vacatingtheassailedresolutionsandordersoftheMTCC
ofCalbayogCityinElectionProtestNo.130andmaking
permanentthetemporaryrestrainingorderearlierissued
TheMunicipalTrialCourtofCalbayogCity,acourtof
limitedjurisdiction,hadtheexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction
over the election protest, and the COMELEC has the
exclusiveappellatejurisdictionoversuchprotest.Sc
RespondentJudgeNavidadgravelyabusedhisdiscretion
whenheextendedbytwentydaysthe72hourrestraining
orderheinitiallyissued.ThesecondparagraphofSection
5ofRule5ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureclearly
provides that "in no case shall the total period of
effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed
twenty (20) days, including the original seventytwo
hoursprovidedherein."

Thereisagraveabuseofdiscretionwherethetrialcourt
fails to determine factual controversy before issuing a
writofdemolition.Failuretodosoistodisregardbasic
principlesofdueprocessbecausebeforedemolitioncould
be effected, the parties concerned must be heard, such
errormaybecorrectedbyawritofcertiorari

the labor arbiter and the NLRC gravely abused their

discretionwhentheyruledinfavorofhereinpetitioners
without determining the existence of an employer
employeerelationshipbetweenthemandrespondents.
the failure to express the factual and legal bases of a
decision is an evasion of a constitutional duty which

and functions necessary and

desirable to the business of
garments
manufacturing
and
exportation x x x and had been also
working x x x for more than one year
at the time of the cessation of
business operation. Save for his
conclusion that [petitioners] were
regular employees, the labor arbiter
made no determination whether
there
was
employer-employee
relationship between [respondents]
and [petitioners] and, if so, whether
[respondents]
assumed
the
obligations of [petitioners] previous
employers. There is no dispute that
given the nature of their functions
and length of services, [petitioners]
were regular employees. But the
question is: who was/were their
employer/s?

constituteagraveabuseofdiscretion.