By: Atty. Elaisha Nelle C. Espinosa on January 16,2025

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states that the judicial power vested in the Supreme Court and the lower courts includes their duty to determine whether there has been a “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Pursuant to the above constitutional mandate, an individual claiming grave abuse of discretion (“GAD”) may file against a person or entity either a Petition for Certiorari or a Petition for Prohibition pursuant toRule 65 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari is filed against persons or entities exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions, with the primary aim of annulling or nullifying the assailed proceedings. Meanwhile, Prohibition may be filed against persons or entities exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, to prevent them from further proceeding with the assailed action.

Rule 64 of the Rules of Court also allows the filing of a Petition for Certiorari, on the basis of GAD, against judgments, orders, and resolutions of the Commission on Election and the Commission on Audit.

The remedies under Rule 65 are original actions that serve as the cornerstone for a claim of GAD. They are considered an extraordinary power of review primarily aimed to “keep inferior courts within their jurisdictional boundaries” (Linden Suites, Inc. v. Meridien Far East Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 211969, October 4, 2021).

What therefore constitutes GAD?

The Supreme Court has held that GAD is committed when the court acts in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment” tantamount to a lack of jurisdiction (Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011).  It does not contemplate a mere abuse of discretion, but one that is so patent and gross as to equal an “evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law” (Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76001, September 5, 1998). It exists when judicial power is exercised in an “arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility” (Heirs of Ferrer v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 234203, June 26, 2023).

San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (G.R. No. 200499, October 4, 2017) further explains that GAD arises when a lower court violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence.

In Invictus Food Products Corp. v. Sandpiper Spices & Condiments Corporation, the Supreme Court held that GAD contemplates errors of jurisdiction only, and not of judgment. Thus, in this case, the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) was held not to have gravely abuse its discretion when it simply weighed the evidence and rendered judgment based on what it believed to be sound and proper given the facts of the case. However, in Enriquez v. Heirs of Enriquez (G.R. No. 215035, May 27, 2024), the Supreme Court found that the RTC committed GAD by ruling based solely on injunction hearings’ preliminary evidence, without conducting a proper trial on the merits.

Specific to criminal cases, an acquittal is deemed decided with GAD if it is shown that the prosecution’s right to due process was violated, or that the trial conducted was a sham (People v. Oliva y Dizon, G.R. No. 264199 (Notice), July 31, 2023).

Meanwhile, in labor cases, the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) was considered to have gravely abused its discretion when (I) its ruling is not supported by substantial evidence; (2) when it is aimed towards substantial justice or the prevention of a substantial wrong; (3) when the NLRC and Labor Arbiter  findings are contradictory; and (4) when necessary to arrive at a just decision (Gaspar v. M.I.Y. Real Estate Corporation, G.R. No. 239385, April 17, 2024).

How is GAD invoked?

A petition for Certiorari or Prohibition requires the concurrence of the following: (1) it is directed against a person or entity exercising the specific functions abovementioned; (2) such person or entity acted with GAD; and (3) there is no appeal or any “plain, speedy, or adequate” remedy in the ordinary course of law (People v. Fabros-Corpuz, G.R. No. 247463, April 17, 2024).

Section 4 of Rule 65 requires that the Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition be filed not later than 60 days from the notice of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution. If a motion for reconsideration or a new trial is filed, the 60 days must be counted from the notice of denial of such motion. Save for certain exceptions, a prior motion for reconsideration is required before a petition for Certiorari or Prohibition may be pursued (Romy’s Freight Service v. Castro, G.R. No. 141637, June 8, 2006). For compelling reasons, the court may grant an extension for filing, which must not exceed 15 days. Respecting the principle of the hierarchy of courts and following the qualifications set under Section 4, the Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition may be filed with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the RTC, or the Sandiganbayan.

The petitioner must implead as respondent, the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person responsible for the assailed judgment, order, or resolution. The petitioner is also responsible for proving the alleged GAD on the part of the person or entity.

Elaisha Nelle C. Espinosa is an Associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com