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