ASG Law

Tag: Interlocutory Order

  • Deposition Dynamics: Balancing Discovery Deadlines and Witness Testimony in Corporate Disputes

    In Philippine Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez and Winefrida Manzo, the Supreme Court addressed whether the strict timelines for modes of discovery in intra-corporate controversies also apply when a deposition is used to present witness testimony. The Court ruled that once a trial court has rendered a decision in the main case, questions regarding interlocutory orders, such as those denying a motion to take deposition, become moot. This clarifies the procedural handling of depositions and discovery in corporate litigation, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines while recognizing exceptions when the issue becomes irrelevant due to subsequent events in the case.

    Discovery Denied: Did the Interim Rules Unfairly Limit Testimony?

    Philippine Computer Solutions, Inc. (PCSI) sought to present deposition testimony from witnesses abroad to support its claims against Winefrida Manzo and others for allegedly using the PCSI corporate name without authorization. PCSI filed a motion to issue a commission to take depositions in Australia and the United States, but the trial court denied this motion, citing a violation of the 15-day reglementary period under Rule 3, Section 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies. This rule dictates that parties must avail themselves of any modes of discovery within fifteen days from the joinder of issues. The central question became whether this rule applies to depositions intended to present testimony or only to those used as a mode of discovery.

    PCSI argued that the Interim Rules should not apply to depositions intended to present witness testimony, relying on Fortune Corporation v. Court of Appeals, which distinguished between depositions as a method of discovery and as a method of presenting testimony. The company contended that because its depositions aimed to present testimony from witnesses abroad, the general Rules of Court should govern, not the stricter Interim Rules. However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed, leading PCSI to elevate the issue to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, however, declined to rule on the substantive issue. Instead, it focused on the fact that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had already rendered a decision in the main case. Due to this, the Supreme Court declared the issue of whether to issue a commission for taking depositions had become moot. The Court emphasized that an issue becomes moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy, and a ruling would have no practical effect.

    The Court further clarified the nature of the trial court’s order denying the motion to take deposition, noting that it was an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order does not resolve the entire case but decides only some point or matter during the proceedings. As such, it is not directly appealable but should be included in the appeal of the final judgment. The Supreme Court cited Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which distinguished between final and interlocutory orders:

    A ‘final’ judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto… Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case…is ‘interlocutory’…

    In this case, because a final decision had been rendered by the RTC, the interlocutory order denying the motion for deposition should have been raised in the petition for review filed by PCSI before the Court of Appeals. The failure to do so, coupled with the fact that a final decision had been reached, rendered the issue moot.

    The Court also highlighted the practical aspect of the case. The Supreme Court noted that Mr. Ralph Bergen, one of PCSI’s key witnesses, had already personally testified during the trial. This further reduced the need for his deposition, underlining the principle that courts should avoid deciding issues that no longer have a practical impact on the parties involved.

    The Supreme Court, in reaching its decision, indirectly addressed the importance of adhering to procedural rules, especially in intra-corporate disputes. While the Interim Rules aim to expedite the resolution of these cases, the Court’s decision underscores the need for parties to raise procedural issues in a timely manner. The ruling also acknowledges the principle that courts should not decide moot questions, as doing so wastes judicial resources and does not serve the interests of justice. The decision underscores the importance of the efficient administration of justice by ensuring that appeals focus on final judgments and that interlocutory orders are reviewed within the context of the entire case.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the appellate court erred in ruling that the reglementary period set by Section 1 Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies applies to deposition that is resorted to as a method of presenting the testimony of a witness. The Supreme Court however, declared the issue as moot.
    What are Interim Rules on Intra-Corporate Controversies? These are special rules that govern procedures in corporate disputes before regular courts. They were designed to expedite the resolution of intra-corporate cases.
    What is a deposition? A deposition is a pre-trial procedure where a witness is examined under oath. The testimony is recorded and can be used as evidence in court.
    What is an interlocutory order? An interlocutory order is a decision made during a case that doesn’t resolve the entire dispute. It’s a preliminary order that addresses certain aspects of the case but leaves other issues unresolved.
    What does “moot and academic” mean in legal terms? It means that the issue presented is no longer a live controversy. A court’s decision would not have any practical effect on the parties involved.
    Why did the Supreme Court deny the petition? The Supreme Court denied the petition because the trial court had already rendered a decision in the main case. The issue of whether to allow the deposition had become moot and academic.
    How does this ruling affect future intra-corporate disputes? It highlights the importance of raising procedural issues like discovery deadlines promptly. It also reinforces the principle that appellate courts should not rule on moot issues.
    What should a party do if a motion is denied? A party should ensure that the issue is properly raised in any subsequent appeal. They cannot appeal the interlocutory order separately.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Philippine Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in intra-corporate disputes. While the Court did not directly rule on the applicability of the Interim Rules to depositions for presenting testimony, its emphasis on the mootness of the issue highlights the need for timely action and proper appeals. Litigants must ensure that procedural challenges are raised appropriately and that appeals focus on final judgments to avoid wasting judicial resources on issues that no longer have a practical impact on the case.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Philippine Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez, G.R. No. 168776, July 17, 2007

  • Maintaining Status Quo: COMELEC’s Power to Suspend Execution Pending Appeal in Election Cases

    In the case of Antonio A. Dimayuga v. Commission on Elections and Mario V. Magsaysay, the Supreme Court addressed the power of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to issue a Status Quo Ante Order, effectively suspending the execution of a lower court’s decision pending appeal in an election protest. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order, emphasizing that a timely filed motion for reconsideration, if not pro forma, suspends the implementation of the assailed decision. This ruling clarifies the COMELEC’s authority to maintain the status quo while resolving pending appeals, ensuring stability and preventing potential disruptions during election disputes. This authority, however, is confined to final decisions of the COMELEC en banc and does not extend to interlocutory orders.

    Clash of Mayors: Can COMELEC Freeze a Contested Victory?

    The legal battle stemmed from the 2004 mayoral elections in San Pascual, Batangas, where Mario V. Magsaysay initially won against Antonio A. Dimayuga. Dimayuga filed an election protest, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) eventually declared him the winner by 41 votes after invalidating ballots for Magsaysay. This victory was short-lived, however. Magsaysay appealed to the COMELEC and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the RTC’s order for execution pending appeal. The COMELEC’s Second Division initially granted the TRO. However, eventually it denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s decision in favor of Dimayuga, leading Magsaysay to file a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc.

    Complicating matters, Dimayuga resumed his duties as mayor, which prompted the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to recognize his incumbency. However, Magsaysay filed an urgent motion with the COMELEC en banc, questioning the RTC’s decision and the validity of the execution pending appeal. Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc issued a Status Quo Ante Order, directing both parties to maintain the status before the RTC’s decision and ordering Dimayuga to vacate the mayoral post in favor of Magsaysay. This action by the COMELEC became the core of Dimayuga’s petition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

    At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision was the COMELEC’s authority under Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. This rule states that a motion for reconsideration, if not pro forma, suspends the execution or implementation of the challenged decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that Magsaysay’s timely filed motion for reconsideration, which the COMELEC en banc did not deem pro forma, effectively suspended the implementation of the COMELEC Second Division’s resolution. This suspension is crucial as it preserves the status quo while the COMELEC fully reviews the merits of the appeal. The Court, in effect, reinforced the COMELEC’s mandate to impartially adjudicate election disputes and prevent premature or potentially erroneous shifts in local governance.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court distinguished between final orders and interlocutory orders in the context of its review power over COMELEC decisions. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution grants the Court the power to review final orders, rulings, and decisions of the COMELEC en banc. The Court deemed the COMELEC’s Status Quo Ante Order as an interlocutory order, meaning it was not a final resolution of the case but rather a provisional measure pending further deliberation. Consequently, the Court held that it would not review the interlocutory order, thus reinforcing the COMELEC’s procedural autonomy in managing election disputes within its jurisdiction.

    This ruling aligns with established jurisprudence emphasizing the COMELEC’s broad powers to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. The COMELEC is vested with the authority to resolve election disputes fairly and efficiently, which sometimes necessitates provisional measures like Status Quo Ante Orders. These orders are critical to ensuring that the outcome of electoral contests is determined by due process and without undue disruption caused by premature implementation of contested decisions. The Supreme Court’s stance underscores the importance of allowing the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate without unnecessary judicial intervention in its procedural decisions. The Court balanced judicial oversight with deference to the COMELEC’s expertise and authority in electoral matters.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The main issue was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a Status Quo Ante Order that suspended the execution of a lower court’s decision in an election protest case.
    What is a Status Quo Ante Order? A Status Quo Ante Order directs parties to maintain the situation as it existed before a specific action or event occurred, in this case, prior to the Regional Trial Court’s decision. It essentially freezes the current state of affairs while the case is being further reviewed.
    Under what rule did the COMELEC issue the Status Quo Ante Order? The COMELEC issued the order pursuant to Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which allows the suspension of a decision’s execution upon the filing of a non-pro forma motion for reconsideration.
    Why did the Supreme Court dismiss Dimayuga’s petition? The Court dismissed the petition because it found that the COMELEC’s order was a valid exercise of its authority under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and because the Status Quo Ante Order was considered an interlocutory order, not subject to immediate review by the Supreme Court.
    What is the difference between a final order and an interlocutory order? A final order completely disposes of a case or a distinct part of it, while an interlocutory order is issued during the proceedings and does not fully resolve the case, serving instead as a provisional measure.
    What does it mean for a motion for reconsideration to be “pro forma”? A pro forma motion for reconsideration is one that does not raise any new or substantial arguments and merely rehashes previous points, indicating that it’s filed only to delay the proceedings.
    What was the role of the DILG in this case? The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) initially recognized Antonio Dimayuga as the mayor based on the Writ of Execution, but clarified that this was subject to the COMELEC’s official reply regarding the mayoralty controversy.
    What practical implications does this case have for election disputes? The case reinforces the COMELEC’s power to maintain stability during election disputes by suspending the execution of lower court decisions while appeals are pending, ensuring that changes in local leadership are orderly and legally sound.

    In conclusion, Dimayuga v. COMELEC affirms the COMELEC’s crucial role in ensuring orderly transitions of power during contested elections by issuing Status Quo Ante Orders. The ruling emphasizes the importance of respecting the COMELEC’s procedural autonomy and authority in managing election disputes. Moreover, it underscores that any recourse to questioning must not come prematurely before an appropriate and conclusive resolution by the poll body.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Antonio A. Dimayuga, vs. Commission on Elections and Mario V. Magsaysay, G.R. NO. 174763, April 24, 2007

  • Cash Deposits in Election Protests: Individual vs. Joint Responsibility

    In Soriano, Jr. vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that interlocutory orders of a COMELEC Division are generally not appealable through certiorari, emphasizing the need to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The Court clarified that only final decisions of the COMELEC En Banc can be directly appealed to the Supreme Court, ensuring that the COMELEC’s internal processes are respected and judicial efficiency is maintained, with exceptions made only when grave abuse of discretion is evident on the face of the interlocutory order.

    Election Protest Costs: Shared Burden or Individual Debt?

    The case arose from the 2004 Muntinlupa City Council elections, where Isidoro L. Soriano, Jr. and other petitioners contested the results, filing election protest cases against the private respondents. After the elections, the Muntinlupa City Board of Canvassers proclaimed private respondents as the duly elected Councilors of the Muntinlupa City Council. Petitioners individually and separately filed election protest cases against private respondents, contesting the results of the elections in all the 603 precincts of the First District and the 521 precincts of the Second District of Muntinlupa City.

    The COMELEC First Division consolidated these cases and subsequently issued orders directing each petitioner to deposit substantial sums to cover the expenses of revising the ballots. Petitioners argued that these costs should be shared jointly, not levied individually, leading them to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition, asserting grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC First Division. However, the COMELEC First Division subsequently dismissed the protests and counter-protests due to the failure of both parties to pay the required cash deposits.

    The core legal issue revolved around whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion by requiring each protestant to make individual cash deposits to cover the revision of ballots in the protested precincts. The petitioners contended that the costs should be shared jointly, not individually. This directly questioned the interpretation and application of COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically concerning the financial obligations of parties involved in election protests. The heart of the matter was about fairness and proportionality in bearing the financial burden of pursuing an election protest.

    In examining the case, the Supreme Court underscored that interlocutory orders of a COMELEC Division generally cannot be directly elevated to the Court via a special civil action for certiorari. Citing Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, it was noted that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. Furthermore, Rule 3, Section 5(c) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure specifies that any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory orders of the division which shall be resolved by the division which issued the order.

    The Court acknowledged the exceptions carved out in previous cases like Kho v. Comelec and Repol v. Commission on Elections, where direct resort to the Supreme Court was allowed due to the patent nullity of the COMELEC Division’s orders, typically stemming from jurisdictional defects. However, in the present case, the Court found no such patent nullity. Instead, the assailed orders pertained to the interpretation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a matter within the COMELEC’s competence.

    Moreover, the Court observed that the underlying election protests had already been dismissed by the COMELEC First Division due to the parties’ failure to make the required cash deposits. This situation further reinforced the principle that interlocutory orders should not be reviewed in isolation, especially when the main case has already been decided. For the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s orders and denying the prayer for preliminary injunctive relief.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering individual cash deposits from each protestant to cover ballot revision expenses in election protest cases. The petitioners contended that these costs should be shared jointly, not individually assessed.
    What is an interlocutory order? An interlocutory order is a provisional decision made during a case that doesn’t fully resolve the matter but deals with specific aspects, and the orders for cash deposit was deemed an interlocutory order. These orders are preliminary steps that guide the proceedings towards a final judgment.
    Why couldn’t the petitioners directly appeal to the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court generally only reviews final decisions of the COMELEC En Banc. Interlocutory orders from a COMELEC Division must first be addressed within the COMELEC’s internal processes, ensuring administrative remedies are exhausted.
    Are there exceptions to the rule against appealing interlocutory orders? Yes, exceptions exist when the COMELEC Division’s interlocutory order is patently null, such as when there is a clear lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court determined that this exception did not apply in this case.
    What happens if a party fails to comply with a COMELEC order for cash deposits? Failure to comply with an order for cash deposits within the specified period can result in the dismissal of their respective protest or counter-protest. This underscores the importance of adhering to the COMELEC’s procedural requirements.
    What is the role of the COMELEC En Banc? The COMELEC En Banc primarily decides motions for reconsideration of final decisions made by a COMELEC Division. It ensures uniformity and consistency in the application of election laws and rules.
    How does this ruling affect future election protests? This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must exhaust administrative remedies within the COMELEC before seeking judicial intervention. It also clarifies the limited circumstances under which interlocutory orders can be directly appealed to the Supreme Court.
    What was the outcome of the election protest in this case? The COMELEC First Division dismissed the election protests and counter-protests due to the parties’ failure to pay the required cash deposits. This effectively ended the legal challenge to the election results.

    The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting the COMELEC’s internal processes in election protest cases. While avenues for appeal exist, they are limited and must be pursued in accordance with established legal principles.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ISIDORO L. SORIANO, JR. VS. COMELEC, G.R. NOS. 164496-505, April 02, 2007

  • Challenging COMELEC Orders: Understanding Certiorari and Preliminary Injunctions in Philippine Election Law

    Navigating COMELEC Injunctions: When Can You Question an Order in Court?

    In the Philippine legal system, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) plays a crucial role in ensuring fair and orderly elections. However, questions arise when COMELEC issues orders that seem to overstep their bounds, particularly when they interfere with ongoing court proceedings. This case clarifies the limits of COMELEC’s power to issue preliminary injunctions against Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and underscores the importance of understanding the proper avenues for legal challenges against COMELEC orders. Essentially, not all COMELEC orders are immediately appealable to the Supreme Court; knowing the difference between final and interlocutory orders is key to protecting your legal rights in election disputes.

    G.R. NOS. 167989-93, March 06, 2007

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a local election where tensions are high, and accusations of fraud fly thick and fast. After the results are in, losing candidates often file election protests in Regional Trial Courts, seeking a recount and judicial review. But what happens when the COMELEC, seemingly out of nowhere, issues an order halting these very court proceedings? This was the predicament faced by the petitioners in Teodoro M. Jumamil vs. COMELEC. This case highlights a critical aspect of Philippine election law: the delicate balance of power between the COMELEC and the regular courts, specifically concerning preliminary injunctions in election protest cases. The central legal question revolves around whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it issued a preliminary injunction against an RTC, effectively stopping the trial of election protest cases. Understanding the nuances of this case is vital for anyone involved in Philippine elections, from candidates to legal professionals.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: COMELEC’s Powers, Certiorari, and Preliminary Injunctions

    To understand the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s crucial to grasp the legal framework within which COMELEC operates. The COMELEC is a constitutional body tasked with enforcing and administering all laws related to the conduct of elections. It has quasi-judicial powers to resolve election disputes. However, this power is not unlimited. The Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has clarified the scope and boundaries of COMELEC’s authority, particularly concerning judicial review of its decisions.

    The remedy sought by the petitioners in this case is certiorari, a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (and Rule 64 for COMELEC and COA cases). Certiorari is used to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Crucially, certiorari is generally available only to challenge final orders, judgments, or resolutions. Interlocutory orders, which are provisional and do not finally dispose of the case, are generally not reviewable by certiorari. This distinction is paramount in this case.

    Another key legal concept here is the writ of preliminary injunction. This is an order issued by a court to restrain a party from performing a particular act or to maintain the status quo while a case is pending. COMELEC, like regular courts, has the power to issue preliminary injunctions. However, the exercise of this power must be within its jurisdiction and must not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court explicitly states the mode of review for COMELEC decisions:

    “SEC. 2. Mode of review. – A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.”

    The Supreme Court in Ambil v. COMELEC, a case cited in Jumamil, emphasized that the Supreme Court’s power to review COMELEC decisions is limited to final orders or resolutions rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, specifically those of the COMELEC en banc, not a division, and certainly not interlocutory orders. This precedent sets the stage for understanding why the petitioners’ case initially faced procedural hurdles.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: The Procedural Labyrinth

    The narrative of Jumamil v. COMELEC unfolds as a series of procedural steps, highlighting the legal battles fought at different levels.

    In the 2004 local elections in Victoria, Northern Samar, Teodoro Jumamil and Nicolas Purog, Jr. were mayoral candidates, along with other petitioners and private respondents vying for vice-mayoralty and council seats. After private respondents were proclaimed winners, petitioners filed election protest cases in the RTC, alleging various election irregularities. These cases were consolidated and assigned to RTC Branch 23 in Allen, Northern Samar.

    The private respondents, instead of directly addressing the substance of the election protests, filed motions to dismiss in the RTC, arguing for a hearing and pre-trial before any ballot revision. The RTC, however, denied these motions and ordered the revision of ballots to proceed. This decision triggered the private respondents to elevate the matter to the COMELEC via a Petition for Certiorari, seeking to annul the RTC’s orders and to stop the ballot revision. Crucially, they also requested a preliminary injunction to halt the RTC proceedings while COMELEC deliberated.

    The COMELEC’s First Division granted the preliminary injunction, effectively stopping the RTC from proceeding with the election protest cases. This COMELEC order became the subject of the petitioners’ recourse to the Supreme Court via the present consolidated Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus.

    The petitioners argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the injunction, essentially interfering with the RTC’s jurisdiction over the election protest cases. The Supreme Court, however, ultimately dismissed the petitions, albeit on grounds of mootness and procedural impropriety. The Court pointed out that the COMELEC’s assailed order – the preliminary injunction – was not a final order reviewable by certiorari under Rule 64. As the Court reiterated, citing Ambil v. COMELEC:

    “The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.”

    Furthermore, the Court noted that by the time the case reached them, the COMELEC had already dismissed the private respondents’ Petitions for Certiorari and lifted the preliminary injunctions. The RTC was already directed to proceed with the ballot revision. The Court stated:

    “In any event, as further manifested in its Comment, the reliefs prayed for in the instant Petitions have already been addressed by public respondent COMELEC in various Resolutions. The Petitions for Certiorari filed by herein private respondents Purog, et al., have not only been dismissed for lack of merit, the former also lifted the writs of preliminary injunction it had earlier issued. Accordingly, the RTC was unequivocally directed to proceed with deliberate dispatch with the revision of the contested and counter-protested ballots in the subject election protest cases.”

    In essence, the Supreme Court sidestepped the substantive issue of whether the COMELEC’s injunction was proper in the first place. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect – the prematurity of the certiorari petition due to the interlocutory nature of the COMELEC order and the subsequent mootness of the issue.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Navigating Challenges to COMELEC Orders

    Jumamil v. COMELEC provides crucial practical lessons for those involved in election disputes and for legal practitioners. The most significant takeaway is understanding the distinction between final and interlocutory orders from the COMELEC, particularly when seeking judicial review.

    Firstly, a preliminary injunction issued by the COMELEC, especially one from a Division, is generally considered an interlocutory order. This means it’s not immediately appealable to the Supreme Court via certiorari under Rule 64. Attempting to directly challenge such an order in the Supreme Court is likely to be dismissed on procedural grounds, as happened in Jumamil.

    Secondly, the proper recourse against an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division is typically a motion for reconsideration within the COMELEC itself, specifically to the COMELEC en banc. Only after the COMELEC en banc issues a final order or resolution can certiorari to the Supreme Court be properly availed of.

    Thirdly, while COMELEC has the power to issue preliminary injunctions, this power is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously. An injunction that unduly interferes with the jurisdiction of regular courts or is issued with grave abuse of discretion can still be challenged through appropriate legal remedies, although the timing and procedure are critical.

    Key Lessons:

    • Know the Order Type: Determine if a COMELEC order is final or interlocutory. Preliminary injunctions are usually interlocutory.
    • Exhaust Administrative Remedies: File a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc for interlocutory orders before seeking Supreme Court review.
    • Certiorari for Final Orders: Rule 64 certiorari to the Supreme Court is generally for final orders of the COMELEC en banc.
    • Procedural Correctness is Key: Properly timing and choosing the correct legal remedy are crucial in challenging COMELEC actions.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is the difference between a final order and an interlocutory order from COMELEC?

    A: A final order fully resolves the case or a particular matter, leaving nothing more to be decided by COMELEC. An interlocutory order, like a preliminary injunction, is provisional and does not fully resolve the case. It’s issued during the proceedings to maintain the status quo or prevent irreparable injury while the main case is being decided.

    Q: Can I immediately appeal a COMELEC Division order to the Supreme Court?

    A: Generally, no. For most orders, especially interlocutory ones from a COMELEC Division, you must first seek reconsideration from the COMELEC en banc before you can elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

    Q: What is a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and when does COMELEC issue it?

    A: A Writ of Preliminary Injunction is a court order that restrains a party from performing a specific act or maintains the status quo. COMELEC can issue it to prevent actions that could prejudice the electoral process or the rights of parties in election disputes, such as halting proceedings in lower courts as seen in this case.

    Q: What is ‘grave abuse of discretion’ in the context of COMELEC orders?

    A: Grave abuse of discretion means COMELEC acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, such that its action is considered a virtual refusal to perform its duty, or when it acted in a manner not authorized by law. It’s more than just a simple error of judgment; it implies a blatant disregard of the law or established procedures.

    Q: If COMELEC issues an injunction against an RTC, what should the RTC do?

    A: The RTC must generally respect and comply with a valid COMELEC injunction. However, if the RTC believes the COMELEC injunction is issued with grave abuse of discretion or is beyond COMELEC’s jurisdiction, it can, through the parties, be challenged via certiorari to the Supreme Court, but only after exhausting remedies within COMELEC itself if the order is interlocutory.

    Q: What does it mean for a case to be ‘moot’?

    A: A case becomes moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issue has ceased to exist, or the relief sought has already been achieved, or is no longer necessary. In Jumamil, the case became moot because COMELEC had already lifted the injunction and dismissed the underlying petitions, rendering the Supreme Court petitions unnecessary.

    ASG Law specializes in Election Law and navigating complex administrative and judicial procedures. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Interlocutory Order Appeals: Understanding Jurisdiction in Philippine Labor Disputes

    Appealing Too Soon: Why Interlocutory Orders Can’t Halt Labor Case Progress

    TLDR: This case clarifies that appealing an interlocutory order (a temporary decision) in a labor dispute doesn’t stop the Labor Arbiter from proceeding with the main case. Premature appeals can be a costly mistake, delaying resolution and potentially weakening your legal position.

    G.R. NO. 148021, December 06, 2006

    Introduction

    Imagine a construction project where the foreman objects to a specific safety regulation. He files an appeal, arguing the rule is unfair. However, the project can’t grind to a halt every time there’s a disagreement over procedure. Similarly, in legal cases, especially labor disputes, certain decisions, called ‘interlocutory orders,’ are temporary steps. Can appealing these temporary orders halt the entire case? The Supreme Court tackled this question in the case of Sime Darby Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, providing crucial guidance on jurisdiction and the handling of labor disputes.

    This case revolves around a labor dispute between Sime Darby Employees Association (the Union) and Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. (the Company). After failed CBA negotiations, a lockout, and eventual closure of the tire manufacturing plant, several complaints were filed. The central legal question was whether the Labor Arbiter lost jurisdiction over the case when the Union appealed an interlocutory order, a decision that wasn’t a final judgment.

    Legal Context: Interlocutory Orders and Jurisdiction

    To understand the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s essential to grasp the concept of ‘interlocutory orders’ and ‘jurisdiction.’ An interlocutory order is a temporary decision made during a case that doesn’t resolve the entire dispute. Think of it as a ruling on evidence or a procedural matter. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is the power of a court or tribunal to hear and decide a case.

    The general rule is that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable. This is because allowing appeals on every minor decision would cause endless delays and disrupt the legal process. As the Supreme Court has stated, “An interlocutory order is not appealable until after the rendition of the judgment on the merits for a contrary rule would delay the administration of justice and unduly burden the courts.”

    Relevant to this case is also the specific procedure for labor disputes, governed primarily by the Labor Code of the Philippines. The Labor Code emphasizes the speedy resolution of labor disputes. This means that technical rules of procedure are often relaxed to ensure a fair and efficient process. The rules of court may apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when there is a need to attain substantial justice and an expeditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor problem.

    Case Breakdown: The Sime Darby Dispute

    The dispute between Sime Darby and its employees unfolded as follows:

    • 1995: CBA negotiations between the Union and the Company reached a deadlock.
    • June 1995: The Company filed a Notice of Lockout, and the Union conducted a strike vote referendum.
    • August 1995: The Company implemented a lockout due to alleged sabotage and work slowdowns.
    • September 1995: The Union filed a complaint for illegal lockout.
    • October 1995: The Company announced the sale of its tire manufacturing assets and issued termination notices to employees.
    • November 1995: Employees received separation pay and signed quitclaims. The Union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
    • January 1996: The Union filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP).
    • August 1998: The Labor Arbiter issued an Order terminating the formal trial and requiring submission of memoranda.
    • October 1998: The Union appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Order to the NLRC.
    • October 29, 1998: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated complaints.

    The Union argued that the Labor Arbiter lost jurisdiction when they appealed the August 1998 Order. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating:

    “The 25 August 1998 Order of the labor arbiter partakes the nature of an interlocutory order, or one which refers to something between the commencement and end of the suit which decides some point or matter but it is not the final decision of the whole controversy.”

    The Court emphasized that allowing appeals of interlocutory orders would disrupt the administration of justice. It further added that the Labor Arbiter has wide discretion in determining whether there is a need for a formal hearing in a given case, and he or she may use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of each case without regard to technicalities. With or without a formal hearing, the labor arbiter may still adequately decide the case since he can resolve the issues on the basis of the pleadings and other documentary evidence previously submitted.

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Employers and Employees

    This case provides important lessons for both employers and employees involved in labor disputes:

    • Don’t Rush to Appeal: Carefully consider whether an order is truly final before filing an appeal. Appealing an interlocutory order can be a waste of time and resources.
    • Focus on the Big Picture: Remember that the goal is to resolve the entire dispute, not just win every minor battle.
    • Understand Labor Procedures: Labor cases are often handled more quickly and with less emphasis on technical rules than regular court cases.

    Key Lessons

    • Interlocutory Orders: Understand the difference between a final order and an interlocutory order.
    • Jurisdiction: Know that appealing an interlocutory order generally does not strip the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction.
    • Due Process: Ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, even if a formal hearing is not required.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is the difference between a final order and an interlocutory order?

    A: A final order resolves the entire case, while an interlocutory order only decides a specific issue during the case.

    Q: Can I appeal an interlocutory order?

    A: Generally, no. Interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable. You must wait until the final order is issued.

    Q: What happens if I mistakenly appeal an interlocutory order?

    A: The appeal may be dismissed, and you may waste time and resources. The Labor Arbiter will likely continue with the case despite the premature appeal.

    Q: Does the Labor Arbiter always need to conduct a formal hearing?

    A: No. The Labor Arbiter has discretion to determine whether a formal hearing is necessary. They can rely on submitted documents and pleadings.

    Q: What should I do if I disagree with an interlocutory order?

    A: Focus on building your case and presenting strong evidence. You can raise your objections to the interlocutory order during the appeal of the final order.

    Q: How does this case affect my rights as an employee?

    A: This case highlights the importance of understanding labor procedures and focusing on the overall resolution of the dispute, rather than getting bogged down in procedural technicalities.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Discretionary Power of Courts: Determining Order of Trial Based on Affirmative Defense

    In The People of the Philippines v. SPO1 Mario Marcial, et al., the Supreme Court affirmed that trial courts have the discretionary power to determine the order of trial, even when an accused admits to the acts charged but raises a lawful defense. The Court emphasized that the decision to modify the standard order of trial under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court remains within the trial court’s sound judgment. This ruling underscores that while an affirmative defense may suggest a different trial sequence, it does not mandate it, ensuring the trial court maintains control over the proceedings to uphold justice and efficiency. The denial of a motion to reverse the order of trial is interlocutory and not subject to appeal.

    Shooting Incident or Justified Action? The Heart of Trial Court Discretion

    This case originated from a shooting incident involving police officers (respondents) and two individuals, Junnyver Dagle and Wendell Sales, resulting in Dagle’s death and serious injuries to Sales. The respondents, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), were charged with homicide and frustrated homicide. During pre-trial, the respondents admitted to the shooting but claimed it was a justified action in response to an alleged call for police assistance. The prosecution then sought to reverse the order of trial, arguing that because the respondents admitted to the acts charged but interposed a lawful defense, they should be required to present their defense first. The trial court denied this motion, leading to the present petition.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court erred in denying the prosecution’s motion to reverse the order of trial. The prosecution anchored its argument on Section 3(e), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act), and its implementing Circular No. 38-98, contending that these provisions mandate a reversal of the order of trial when the accused admits the offense but interposes a lawful defense. The prosecution contended that a modification or reversal of the order of trial is warranted under Section 3 (e), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court which provides as follows:

    (e)

    When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.

    The Court, however, clarified that the language of the Rules of Court and related statutes indicates that modifying the order of trial in such circumstances is discretionary, not mandatory. The use of the word “may” in both Section 3(e) of Rule 119 and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8493 indicates that the trial court has the discretion to determine whether a reverse order of trial is appropriate. The Court emphasized that the RTC correctly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for a reverse order of trial.

    The Supreme Court highlighted that the denial of the motion to reverse the order of trial is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not appealable. Allowing appeals on such procedural matters would only serve to delay the proceedings, undermining the very purpose of the Speedy Trial Act. This pronouncement reinforces the trial court’s authority to manage its proceedings efficiently, free from unnecessary interruptions. Ultimately, the decision underscores the importance of the trial court’s role in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a fair and expeditious trial.

    The Court referenced Republic Act No. 8493, Section 7:

    If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, he/she shall state whether he/she interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.

    It also cited Circular No. 38-98, Section 3:

    If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyong reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.

    The practical implication of this decision is that trial courts retain significant control over the conduct of trials. Even when an accused admits to the acts charged but claims a lawful defense, the court is not automatically required to alter the standard order of trial. This discretion allows the court to consider the specific circumstances of the case and determine the most efficient and fair manner of proceeding. The decision ensures that trial courts can manage their dockets effectively, preventing unnecessary delays caused by interlocutory appeals on procedural matters.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the principle that procedural rules are designed to facilitate justice, not to create obstacles. By affirming the trial court’s discretion in determining the order of trial, the Court reinforces the importance of allowing trial judges to manage their courtrooms effectively. This approach promotes efficiency and fairness in the judicial process, ensuring that cases are resolved expeditiously while protecting the rights of all parties involved. The ruling also highlights the non-appealable nature of interlocutory orders, preventing undue delays and streamlining the litigation process.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the prosecution’s motion to reverse the order of trial after the accused admitted to the acts charged but claimed a lawful defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s discretionary power in this matter.
    What is an affirmative defense? An affirmative defense is a defense where the accused admits to committing the act but claims it was justified or excusable under the law, such as self-defense or fulfillment of a duty. Unlike a negative defense, which denies the elements of the crime, an affirmative defense introduces new facts to avoid liability.
    What does it mean that the order denying the motion to reverse the order of trial is ‘interlocutory’? An interlocutory order is a decision made during the course of a case that does not resolve the ultimate issue. Because it is interlocutory, the denial of the motion to reverse the order of trial is not immediately appealable; it can only be reviewed as part of an appeal of the final judgment.
    What is the significance of the word “may” in Section 3(e) of Rule 119? The use of the word “may” indicates that the trial court has discretion, not a mandatory obligation, to modify the order of trial when the accused admits to the act but raises a lawful defense. This discretionary power allows the court to consider the specific circumstances of each case.
    How does this ruling affect the Speedy Trial Act? This ruling promotes the Speedy Trial Act by preventing unnecessary delays caused by interlocutory appeals on procedural matters. By affirming the trial court’s control over the order of trial, the Court ensures that cases can proceed more efficiently.
    What was the factual background of the case? The case stemmed from a shooting incident where police officers shot two individuals, resulting in one death and one serious injury. The officers admitted to the shooting but claimed it was justified, responding to an alleged call for police assistance.
    What is the standard order of trial in criminal cases? The standard order of trial typically requires the prosecution to present its evidence first to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense then presents its evidence to rebut the prosecution’s case.
    What factors might a trial court consider when deciding whether to reverse the order of trial? A trial court might consider factors such as the clarity of the admission by the accused, the nature of the affirmative defense, the potential for confusion or delay, and the overall fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.

    This decision clarifies the scope of a trial court’s discretion in managing criminal proceedings and reinforces the principle that procedural rules should serve the interests of justice and efficiency. Trial courts must balance the rights of the accused with the need for a fair and expeditious trial, and this ruling affirms their authority to make decisions that promote these goals.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SPO1 MARIO MARCIAL, ET AL., G.R. NOS. 152864-65, September 27, 2006

  • Motion to Dismiss Denied: Sufficiency of Complaint and Right to Trial

    In Dr. Melanio Malicdem and Roy C. Ferrer v. Romeo Flores, the Supreme Court addressed the propriety of a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint for specific performance and damages. The Court held that denying the motion was correct, emphasizing that the focus should be on the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, rather than their veracity, at this preliminary stage. This ruling reinforces a litigant’s right to present their case fully in court, especially when the complaint states a cause of action, entitling them to a trial where both parties can present their evidence. The decision ensures that procedural technicalities do not prematurely prevent a party from seeking redress in court, promoting fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

    Lease Renewal Dispute: When Does a Complaint Merit a Full Trial?

    This case arose from a dispute over the non-renewal of a lease contract between Romeo Flores and Pangasinan State University (PSU), represented by Dr. Melanio Malicdem and Roy C. Ferrer. Flores sought specific performance and damages after PSU declined to extend his lease of the university’s canteen. The university officials filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Flores had no cause of action and that the lease contract was unauthorized and violated auditing regulations.

    The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, leading the university officials to file a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was also dismissed. Undeterred, the officials elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. At the heart of the legal battle was whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Flores’s complaint.

    The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. It reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari is generally not the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion to dismiss. Such an order is interlocutory, meaning it does not finally dispose of the case. This means that something still needs to be done by the court before the case can be decided on its merits. Certiorari is reserved for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. While exceptions exist, the petitioners failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

    The Court underscored two primary reasons for its decision. First, the motion to dismiss was filed after the petitioners had already submitted an answer to the complaint. Under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss must be filed within the time for but before filing the answer. The Court found that this procedural requirement was not met in this case, making the motion to dismiss dismissible.

    Second, the Court found that the trial court’s order denying the motion adequately stated the reasons for the denial. It narrated the conflicting claims of the parties and concluded that these divergent positions necessitated a full-blown hearing. Moreover, the denial was explicitly based on Section 1, Rule 16, which was deemed sufficient justification. The Supreme Court emphasized that specificity requirements under the Constitution apply more stringently to judgments and final orders than to interlocutory orders. This highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the discretion afforded to trial courts in managing cases before them.

    The Supreme Court clarified that, even if PSU was not legally obligated to renew the contract and even if the original lease violated auditing regulations, the complaint filed by Flores sufficiently stated a cause of action for damages. The Court highlighted that the rules of procedure require only a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A complaint states a cause of action if it contains three indispensable elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect that right; and (3) an act or omission by the defendant violating the plaintiff’s right. The High Court stated that:

    The rules of procedure require that the complaint must make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violate of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

    The court articulated the rule that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action focuses on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the allegations. The court’s determination is confined to the four corners of the complaint. The Court noted that:

    In a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action and not whether those allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.

    The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

    If the allegations of the complaint are sufficient in form and substance but their veracity and correctness are assailed, it is incumbent upon the court to deny the motion to dismiss and require the defendant to answer and go to trial to prove his defense. The veracity of the assertions of the parties can be ascertained at the trial of the case on the merits.

    Thus, the Court found that the veracity of assertions and factual disputes should be resolved during a full trial. Overall, the Court underscored the importance of allowing both parties to present their respective evidence and to have a hearing on the merits. This ensures a fair and thorough adjudication of the issues in dispute. As the Supreme Court pointed out in the case of Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:

    We find no more need to pass upon the question of whether the complaint states a cause of action for damages or whether the complaint is barred by estoppel or laches. As these matters require presentation and/or determination of facts, they can be best resolved after trial on the merits.

    FAQs

    What was the main issue in this case? The main issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the university officials against Romeo Flores’s complaint for specific performance and damages related to a lease contract.
    What is a motion to dismiss? A motion to dismiss is a request to the court to terminate a case because the complaint is legally deficient. It can be based on various grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a cause of action.
    What is a cause of action? A cause of action is a set of facts that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy under the law. It includes a right of the plaintiff, a corresponding obligation of the defendant, and a violation of that right.
    Why did the Supreme Court uphold the denial of the motion to dismiss? The Supreme Court upheld the denial because the motion was filed after the answer, violating procedural rules. The complaint also sufficiently stated a cause of action for damages, necessitating a trial to resolve factual disputes.
    What is an interlocutory order? An interlocutory order is a decision made by a court during a case that does not resolve the entire case. It only deals with preliminary matters and leaves the main issues to be decided later.
    What does it mean to file a special civil action for certiorari? Filing a special civil action for certiorari is a way to ask a higher court to review the actions of a lower court. It’s used when there’s a claim that the lower court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
    When should a motion to dismiss be filed? A motion to dismiss should be filed within the period to file an answer but before the answer is actually filed. This timing is crucial under the Rules of Court.
    Why is it important to present all evidence in court? Presenting all evidence in court ensures that the judge can make a fully informed decision based on all relevant facts. It provides an opportunity for each party to present their side of the story.
    What rule covers filing a motion to dismiss? Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court governs the filing of a motion to dismiss, specifically outlining the timing and grounds for such a motion.
    Why did the court remand the case back to the trial court? The court remanded the case to the trial court to allow both parties the opportunity to present their evidence and to undergo a full trial on the merits.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Malicdem v. Flores emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting a litigant’s right to a full trial when a complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts must prioritize fairness and allow parties to present their evidence, rather than prematurely dismissing cases based on technicalities.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: DR. MELANIO MALICDEM AND ROY C. FERRER VS. ROMEO FLORES, G.R. NO. 151001, September 08, 2006

  • Certiorari in the Philippines: Understanding Grounds and Limitations for Challenging Court Orders

    Certiorari in the Philippines: Challenging Court Orders Requires Showing Grave Abuse of Discretion

    TLDR: This case clarifies that certiorari is a limited remedy for challenging lower court orders. It’s not a substitute for an appeal and is only appropriate when a court acts with grave abuse of discretion, exceeding its jurisdiction, or refusing to perform a legal duty. Errors in judgment, as opposed to errors in jurisdiction, are not grounds for certiorari and must be raised on appeal.

    G.R. NO. 151007, July 17, 2006: Triplex Enterprises, Inc. vs. PNB-Republic Bank and Solid Builders, Inc.

    Introduction

    Imagine a business deal gone sour. You believe a court made a wrong call during the trial, impacting your chances of success. Can you immediately challenge that decision? In the Philippines, the answer isn’t always a straightforward yes. The special civil action of certiorari provides a specific avenue for challenging certain court actions, but it’s not a catch-all remedy for every perceived error.

    This case, Triplex Enterprises, Inc. vs. PNB-Republic Bank and Solid Builders, Inc., delves into the scope and limitations of certiorari as a legal remedy. It underscores that certiorari is reserved for instances where a court has acted with grave abuse of discretion, exceeding its jurisdiction, or refusing to perform a legal duty. The case revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and whether the trial court’s decision on that matter could be challenged via certiorari.

    Legal Context: Understanding Certiorari

    Certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is a special civil action used to correct errors of jurisdiction. It’s not meant to substitute for an appeal, which is the usual remedy for errors of judgment. The key lies in understanding the difference between these two types of errors.

    An error of jurisdiction occurs when a court acts without or in excess of its authority. This could mean the court lacked the power to hear the case in the first place, or that it overstepped its bounds in making a particular ruling. Grave abuse of discretion implies that the court’s action was so egregious and arbitrary that it amounted to a virtual refusal to perform its duty under the law.

    On the other hand, an error of judgment occurs when a court, acting within its jurisdiction, makes a mistake in applying the law or appreciating the evidence. These types of errors are typically addressed through the ordinary appeal process. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, certiorari is not a tool for correcting every controversial interlocutory ruling.

    Relevant provisions from Rule 65 of the Rules of Court state:

    Section 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer as the law requires.

    Case Breakdown: Triplex Enterprises vs. PNB-Republic Bank

    Triplex Enterprises, Inc. sought to annul the sale of land by PNB-Republic Bank to Solid Builders, Inc., claiming it should have been awarded the sale as the highest bidder. The dispute centered around whether the bank properly approved the sale to Solid Builders.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • Triplex bid on two parcels of land in Tagaytay City being sold by PNB-Republic Bank.
    • PNB-Republic Bank rejected Triplex’s bid and sold the properties to Solid Builders, Inc.
    • Triplex engaged a real estate broker, Atty. Romeo Roque, who obtained a legal opinion from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) suggesting the sale to Solid Builders may not have been properly approved.
    • During trial, Triplex attempted to introduce Atty. Roque’s testimony regarding the OGCC opinion.
    • The trial court disallowed the testimony, citing attorney-client privilege between the OGCC and PNB-Republic Bank.
    • Triplex filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion.

    The Court of Appeals dismissed Triplex’s petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court’s decision to exclude the evidence, even if erroneous, was an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. Therefore, certiorari was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court reiterated that 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.

    The Supreme Court stated:

    “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.”

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized the limited scope of certiorari:

    “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.”

    Practical Implications: When Can You Use Certiorari?

    This case serves as a reminder that certiorari is a very specific tool with limited application. It’s not a substitute for a regular appeal. If you believe a court made a mistake in applying the law or evaluating evidence, your primary recourse is to appeal the decision after the trial court renders its judgment.

    Certiorari is appropriate only when the court has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This means you must demonstrate that the court’s action was so patently wrong and arbitrary that it amounted to a virtual refusal to perform its legal duty.

    Key Lessons:

    • Understand the difference: Know the distinction between errors of jurisdiction (grounds for certiorari) and errors of judgment (grounds for appeal).
    • Act quickly: Certiorari petitions have strict deadlines. Consult with a lawyer immediately if you believe a court has acted improperly.
    • Gather evidence: You must present compelling evidence of the court’s lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
    • Consider alternatives: Explore all other available remedies, such as motions for reconsideration, before resorting to certiorari.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is the difference between certiorari and appeal?

    A: Certiorari addresses errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, while appeal addresses errors of judgment. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, while appeal is the ordinary remedy for correcting errors made by a lower court.

    Q: When should I file a petition for certiorari?

    A: You should file a petition for certiorari when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

    Q: What is considered grave abuse of discretion?

    A: Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law.

    Q: Can I use certiorari to challenge a decision I simply disagree with?

    A: No. Certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal. If you disagree with a court’s decision based on its interpretation of the law or its assessment of the evidence, your remedy is to appeal the decision, not to file a petition for certiorari.

    Q: What happens if I file a petition for certiorari when an appeal is the proper remedy?

    A: The petition for certiorari will likely be dismissed. The courts will generally require you to pursue the ordinary remedy of appeal before resorting to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

    Q: What is an Interlocutory Order?

    A: An interlocutory order is a decision made during the pendency of a case that does not dispose of the case completely but is instead part of the continuous proceedings. In general, these types of orders cannot be appealed until a final order is made that fully resolves the case.

    ASG Law specializes in commercial litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Private Complainants’ Right to File Certiorari in Criminal Cases: A Deep Dive

    Private Complainants Can Seek Certiorari Without Public Prosecutor’s Consent

    TLDR: This case clarifies that a private complainant in a criminal case can file a special civil action for certiorari to challenge interlocutory orders of the trial court, even without the consent of the public prosecutor, especially when it relates to the civil aspect of the case. This ensures that the private complainant’s interest in the civil damages potentially arising from the criminal action is protected.

    G.R. NO. 152903, July 17, 2006

    Introduction

    Imagine you’ve been wronged – a bounced check, a fraudulent transaction, a broken promise. You file a criminal case, hoping for justice and compensation. But the trial court makes a decision that stalls the process, seemingly without good reason. Do you, as the injured party, have the right to challenge that decision directly? This is the core issue addressed in the Supreme Court case of Thomasita Rodriguez v. Rolando Gadiane & Ricardo Rafols Jr., which clarifies the rights of private complainants in criminal proceedings.

    This case revolves around Thomasita Rodriguez, the private complainant in a B.P. 22 (bouncing check law) case against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. When the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) suspended the criminal proceedings due to a pending civil case, Rodriguez filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to challenge the suspension order. The RTC dismissed her petition because it was filed without the public prosecutor’s conformity. The Supreme Court was asked to determine if a private offended party can independently seek certiorari in such situations.

    Legal Context

    The right to file a special civil action for certiorari is enshrined in Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This rule allows an “aggrieved party” to question acts of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, if they acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

    The key question is: Who qualifies as an “aggrieved party” in a criminal case? Traditionally, criminal cases are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines, with the public prosecutor representing the state. However, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the private offended party also has a stake, particularly in the civil aspect of the case. B.P. 22 cases are unique as the criminal action is deemed to include the corresponding civil action, as stated in Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure:

    “Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. –
    (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
    (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file the civil action separately shall be allowed. Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed…”

    Previous jurisprudence, such as Paredes v. Gopengco and De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals, has affirmed the private offended party’s standing to file certiorari and prohibition in criminal cases. However, the extent of this right, especially when it comes to challenging interlocutory orders, needed further clarification.

    Case Breakdown

    The story begins with Thomasita Rodriguez filing a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 against Rolando Gadiane and Ricardo Rafols, Jr. in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC then issued an order suspending the criminal proceedings because of a related pending civil case. Rodriguez, feeling that this suspension unjustly delayed the resolution of her case, sought to challenge the MTC’s order.

    Here’s a breakdown of the procedural journey:

    1. MTC Order: The MTC suspended the criminal proceedings.
    2. RTC Petition for Certiorari: Rodriguez filed a petition for certiorari in the RTC to challenge the MTC’s order.
    3. Motion to Dismiss: Gadiane and Rafols filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that only the government prosecutor could represent the People of the Philippines.
    4. RTC Dismissal: The RTC dismissed Rodriguez’s petition because it lacked the public prosecutor’s conformity.
    5. Supreme Court Petition for Review: Rodriguez elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the “person aggrieved” who can file a special civil action for certiorari includes the private offended party. As the Court stated:

    “In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is 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 filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant.”

    Further, the Court highlighted the complainant’s interest in the civil aspect of the case:

    “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, complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in name of said complainant.”

    The Supreme Court found that the RTC erred in dismissing Rodriguez’s petition. The Court noted that the challenged order was not one dismissing the case or acquitting the respondents, so the private complainant was not limited in seeking judicial review of the order.

    Practical Implications

    This ruling has significant implications for private complainants in criminal cases, particularly those involving B.P. 22 or similar offenses where the criminal and civil aspects are intertwined. It reinforces the idea that private complainants are not merely witnesses but have a direct and protectable interest in the outcome of the proceedings, especially concerning potential civil liability.

    For businesses and individuals who find themselves victims of crimes that also give rise to civil claims, this case provides assurance that they can actively protect their interests by challenging adverse interlocutory orders, even if the public prosecutor does not share their concerns.

    Key Lessons:

    • Standing to Sue: Private complainants have standing to file certiorari to challenge interlocutory orders in criminal cases that affect their civil interests.
    • Independent Action: This right can be exercised independently, without requiring the public prosecutor’s conformity.
    • Protecting Civil Interests: The ruling safeguards the private complainant’s right to pursue civil damages arising from the criminal offense.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is a special civil action for certiorari?

    A: Certiorari is a legal remedy used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion committed by a lower court or tribunal. It’s a way to challenge decisions that are made without proper authority or with a clear disregard for the law.

    Q: Does this mean a private complainant can appeal a criminal acquittal?

    A: No. This ruling specifically addresses interlocutory orders. Only the Solicitor General can appeal the criminal aspect of a case if there is an acquittal. The private complainant can only appeal the civil aspect.

    Q: What kind of orders can a private complainant challenge via certiorari?

    A: Orders that affect the progress or outcome of the case, particularly those impacting the civil aspect, such as orders suspending proceedings, denying motions for restitution, or improperly excluding evidence.

    Q: Why is the public prosecutor’s conformity not required in these cases?

    A: Because the private complainant is acting to protect their own civil interests, which are distinct from the State’s interest in prosecuting the crime. The complainant has a direct financial stake in the outcome.

    Q: What should I do if I’m a private complainant and the court issues an order I disagree with?

    A: Consult with a qualified attorney immediately to assess your options and determine if a petition for certiorari is appropriate. Time is of the essence in these matters.

    Q: What is an interlocutory order?

    A: An interlocutory order is a court order made during the course of litigation that does not resolve the ultimate issue in the case. It is a provisional or preliminary decision.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal and civil litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Philippine Courts: Understanding Interlocutory Orders and the Hierarchy of Courts

    When to Appeal and Where: Mastering Interlocutory Orders in Philippine Courts

    TLDR: Confused about appealing court decisions? This case clarifies that interlocutory orders (temporary decisions during a case) cannot be directly appealed to the Supreme Court. You must first understand the hierarchy of Philippine courts and the correct legal remedies, like a Rule 65 certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals for grave abuse of discretion, rather than an immediate Rule 45 appeal to the Supreme Court, which is reserved for final judgments. Choosing the wrong path can lead to delays and dismissal of your case.

    nn

    G.R. NO. 141393, April 19, 2006 – CATHERINE A. YEE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ESTRELLITA P. BERNABE, ACTING PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF BENGUET, RESPONDENT.

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine facing a criminal charge and feeling your right to due process has been violated because you weren’t properly notified of a preliminary investigation. You rush to court, seeking a reinvestigation, only to be denied. Frustrated, you might think of appealing directly to the highest court, the Supreme Court. However, Philippine law has specific rules about when and how you can appeal, especially when dealing with temporary court orders issued during an ongoing case. The case of Catherine A. Yee v. Hon. Estrellita P. Bernabe highlights the crucial importance of understanding the distinction between final and interlocutory orders, and the strict adherence to the hierarchy of Philippine courts. This case serves as a stark reminder that choosing the wrong legal remedy and court level can derail your legal battle even before it truly begins. At the heart of this case is the question: can you immediately appeal an order denying a preliminary reinvestigation directly to the Supreme Court?

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, FINAL ORDERS, AND THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS

    n

    Philippine legal procedure distinguishes between two main types of court orders: interlocutory orders and final orders. An interlocutory order is a decision made by the court during the course of a case that does not completely resolve all the issues. Think of it as a temporary or provisional decision, like an order denying a motion for preliminary investigation, which doesn’t determine guilt or innocence, but simply allows the case to proceed. On the other hand, a final order is one that fully disposes of the case, leaving nothing else for the court to decide, such as a judgment of conviction or acquittal.

    n

    The Rules of Court, specifically Rule 45, governs appeals to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Crucially, Rule 45 is designed for reviewing final judgments, awards, or orders. It is not the correct avenue for challenging interlocutory orders. Rule 41, Section 2(c) of the Rules of Court reinforces this, specifying that “no appeal may be taken from…an interlocutory order.” This is designed to prevent piecemeal appeals that would cause delays and disrupt the trial process. As the Supreme Court explained in Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson, quoting Sitchon v. Sheriff of Occidental Negros, allowing appeals from every interlocutory order would lead to a “multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal.”

    n

    However, the law recognizes that there might be instances where an interlocutory order is issued with grave abuse of discretion, essentially meaning the court acted in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such exceptional cases, the remedy is not a Rule 45 appeal, but a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 65 allows a higher court to review interlocutory orders, but it must be filed in the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court in most instances, due to the principle of the hierarchy of courts.

    n

    The hierarchy of courts is a fundamental principle in the Philippine judicial system. It dictates that cases should generally be filed and appealed to the lowest appropriate court in the judicial hierarchy. From Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) or Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), appeals generally go to the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). Decisions of the RTCs are typically appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), and only then, under specific circumstances, can cases reach the Supreme Court (SC). This structure ensures efficient case flow and allows each court level to focus on its designated jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court stated in Ouano v. PGTT Int’l. Corp., “This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari…is concurrent with the Court of Appeals…and with the RTCs in proper cases within their respective regions. However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice…The hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum for such petitions.”

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: YEE’S WRONG TURN IN THE JUDICIAL HIGHWAY

    n

    Catherine Yee found herself facing serious charges under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. An information was filed against her in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Benguet for allegedly stealing an Isuzu Elf chiller van. Yee, believing she had not been given a chance to participate in a preliminary investigation, filed a “motion to conduct preliminary reinvestigation” with the RTC. She claimed she was never notified of the initial preliminary investigation, supporting her claim with a certification that the subpoena was not served on her. The RTC, despite acknowledging the lack of notice, denied her motion and set her arraignment.

    n

    Undeterred, Yee sought reconsideration, but the RTC remained firm in its denial. Instead of going to the Court of Appeals, Yee directly filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC’s denial of her motion for reinvestigation. She argued that the RTC erred in denying her motion, asserting that the time limit for requesting a preliminary investigation shouldn’t apply to her because she was never notified, and that her actions of posting bail didn’t waive her right to a preliminary investigation.

    n

    The Supreme Court, however, immediately flagged a critical procedural misstep. The Court pointed out that Yee had chosen the wrong legal remedy. The denial of a motion for preliminary reinvestigation is an interlocutory order. It doesn’t resolve the case itself; it simply allows the criminal proceedings to move forward. As the Supreme Court emphasized, “It is noteworthy that the assailed orders denying petitioner’s motion for preliminary reinvestigation are merely interlocutory and may be questioned not at this stage of the proceedings but rather as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.”

    n

    The Supreme Court further explained that even if Yee intended to file a special civil action for certiorari (Rule 65), her petition was still flawed. Firstly, it was filed directly with the Supreme Court, violating the hierarchy of courts. Rule 65 petitions challenging RTC orders should initially be filed with the Court of Appeals. Secondly, Yee’s petition failed to properly allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, a necessary ground for a Rule 65 petition. The Court stated, “As pointed out by respondent Fiscal, the petition does not allege grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which is the ground for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.”

    n

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed Yee’s petition, not on the merits of her claim about the preliminary investigation, but purely on procedural grounds. The Court concluded, “In sum, the petition does not raise any special and important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance that would justify direct recourse to this Court. Consequently, the failure of petitioner to strictly adhere to the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts constitutes sufficient cause for the dismissal of the present petition.”

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: DON’T TAKE THE WRONG EXIT ON THE LEGAL HIGHWAY

    n

    The Yee v. Bernabe case offers vital lessons for anyone involved in litigation in the Philippines. Understanding the nature of court orders – whether interlocutory or final – is paramount. Mistaking an interlocutory order for a final one and attempting a direct Rule 45 appeal to the Supreme Court will almost certainly lead to dismissal, as it did in Yee’s case. This can result in significant delays and wasted resources, potentially jeopardizing your legal position.

    n

    For businesses and individuals facing legal disputes, this case underscores the critical need for competent legal counsel who are well-versed in Philippine procedural law. A lawyer can correctly identify the nature of a court order and advise on the appropriate legal remedies and the correct court to approach. In cases involving interlocutory orders where grave abuse of discretion is suspected, a timely Rule 65 certiorari petition filed in the Court of Appeals might be the appropriate step. For final judgments, an appeal to the Court of Appeals or, in specific instances, to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, may be warranted.

    nn

    Key Lessons from Yee v. Bernabe:

    n

      n

    • Know the Difference: Distinguish between interlocutory and final orders. Interlocutory orders are temporary and do not resolve the entire case, while final orders conclude the case.

      • n

    • Rule 45 is for Final Orders: A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is only for reviewing final judgments, not interlocutory orders.

      • n

    • Rule 65 for Grave Abuse (Interlocutory Orders): To challenge an interlocutory order, especially for grave abuse of discretion, consider a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, filed in the Court of Appeals.

      • n

    • Hierarchy of Courts Matters: Adhere to the hierarchy of courts. Don’t jump directly to the Supreme Court unless there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons.

      • n

    • Seek Expert Legal Advice: Consult with a qualified lawyer to determine the correct legal strategy and procedural steps in your specific situation.

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    nn

    Q: What is the difference between an interlocutory order and a final order?

    n

    A: An interlocutory order is a temporary decision during a case that doesn’t resolve all issues, like denying a motion. A final order completely resolves the case, such as a judgment of conviction or dismissal.

    nn

    Q: Can I appeal every court order immediately?

    n

    A: No. Generally, you can only appeal final orders. Interlocutory orders are usually not immediately appealable to avoid delays and fragmented litigation. However, they can be challenged via Rule 65 in specific circumstances.

    nn

    Q: What is Rule 45 and when should I use it?

    n

    A: Rule 45 is a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Use it to appeal final judgments or orders of lower courts on questions of law.

    nn

    Q: What is Rule 65 and when is it appropriate?

    n

    A: Rule 65 is a special civil action for Certiorari filed with a higher court (usually the Court of Appeals for RTC orders). It’s used to challenge interlocutory orders issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

    nn

    Q: What does