Case Digests
G.R. No. 189207: June 15, 2011 ERIC U. YU, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE v. HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYESCAR!IO, "n #e$ o%%"&"'( &')'&"*+ ' !$e"-"n Ju-e, Re"on'( /$"'( Cou$* o% !'"B$'n&# 21 'n- CAROLINE /. YU , Respondents. ELASCO, JR., J.: 3AC/S: The instant petition stemmed from a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by petitioner Eric U. Yu against private respondent Caroline T. Yu with the RTC inPasigCity. Thereafter, while the case was being heard by the RTC!ranch "#$, private respondent filed an %mnibus &otion on &ay "$, "''(.The %mnibus &otion sought )$* the strict observation by the RTC!ranch "#$ of the Rule on +eclaration of bsolute -ullity of oid &arriages, as codified in .&. -o. '" $$$'/ $$$'/C, C, in the sub0ect sub0ect procee proceedin dings1 gs1 and )"* that that the incident incident on the decla declara rati tion on of null nullit ity y of marr marriag iage e be alre alread ady y submi submitt tted ed for for reso resolu luti tion on.. 234 Conversely, private respondent prayed that the incident on the declaration of nullity of marriage be resolved ahead of the incidents on custody, support, and property relations, and not simultaneously. 5uite e6pectedly, petitioner opposed the %mnibus &otion. 7n its %rder dated ugust 8, "''(, the RTC!ranch RTC!ranch "#$ granted the %mnibus &otion.%n ugust, "(, "''(, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the ugust 8, "''( %rder.%n %ctober "8, "''(, 9udge ReyesCarpio issued an %rder denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. %n 9anuary (, "''3, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule #: with with the the C, C, as assai sailin ling g both both the the RTC %rde %rders rs date dated d u ugus gustt 8, "''( "''( and and %ctober "8, "''(. The petition impleaded 9udge ReyesCarpio as respondent and and alle allege ged d that that the the latte latterr co comm mmit itte ted d grav grave e abus abuse e of disc discre reti tion on in the the issuance of the assailed orders. %n &arch ;$, "''3, the C affirmed the 0udgment of the trial court and dismissed the petition. The dispositive portion of the C +ecision reads< ll told, absent any arbitrary or despotic e6ercise of 0udicial powe powerr as to amou amount nt to abus abuse e of disc discre reti tion on on the the part part of
respondent 9udge in issuing the assailedOrders, the instant petition for certiorari cannot prosper. ISSUE: =hether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent 9udge HELD: -o RE4EDIAL LA: C"6"( !$o&e-u$e, Ru(e 5 Petition for Certiorari under Rule #: is the proper remedy in assailing that a 0udge has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac> or e6cess of 0urisdiction. The term ?grave abuse of discretion? has a specific meaning.n act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a ?capricious or whimsical e6ercise of 0udgment as is e@uivalent to lac> of 0urisdiction.? The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an ?evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty en0oined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is e6ercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.? Aurthermore,the use of a petition forcertiorariis restricted only to ?truly e6traordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or @uasi0udicial body is wholly void.? Arom the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule #: can only stri>e an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross.!ut this is not the case here. -owhere in the petition was it shown that the acts being alleged to have been e6ercised with grave abuse of discretion)$* the %rders of the RTC deferring the presentation of evidence on custody, support, and property relations1 and )"* the appellate courts +ecision of upholding the %rderswere patent and gross that would warrant stri>ing down through a petition for certiorari under Rule #:. t the very least, petitioner should prove and demonstrate that the RTC %rders and the C +ecision weredone in acapricious or whimsical e6ercise of 0udgment. This, however, has not been shown in the petition. 7t appears in the records that the %rders in @uestion, or what are alleged to have been e6ercised with grave abuse of discretion, are interlocutory orders.n interlocutory order is one which?does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Courts tas> of ad0udicating the parties
contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court.? To be clear, certiorari under Rule #: is appropriate to stri>e down an interlocutory order only when the following re@uisites concur< )$* when the tribunal issued such order without or in e6cess of 0urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion1 and )"* when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford ade@uate and e6peditious relief. 7n this case, as =e have discussed earlier, petitioner failed to prove that the assailed orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion and that those were patently erroneous.Considering that the re@uisites that would 0ustify certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order have not been complied with, the proper recourse for petitioner should have been an appeal in due course of the 0udgment of the trial court on the merits, incorporating the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders. !E/I/ION DENIED.
