G.R. No.
189207 June 15, 2011
ERIC U. YU, Petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO, in her official capacity as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig-Branch 261; and CAROLINE T.
YU, Respondents.
FACTS:
Eric Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Caroline T. Yu with
the RTC of Pasig. Judge Suarez on May 30, 2006 issued an order stating that Eric’s
partial offer of evidence dated April 18, 2006 would be submitted for resolution after
certain exhibits have been remarked. But the exhibits were only relative to the issue of
the nullity of the marriage of Eric and Caroline. On September 12, 2006, Caroline
moved to submit the case for resolution, considering that the incidents on custody,
support, and property relations (incidental issues) were mere consequences of the
declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage.
Eric opposed this motion saying that the incident on declaration of nullity cannot be
resolved without presentation of evidence for the incidents on custody, support, and
property relations. Eric added that the incidental issues and the issue on declaration of
nullity can both proceed and be simultaneously resolved. RTC ruled in favour of Eric’s
opposition.
Caroline caused the inhibition of Judge Suarez, so that the case was re-raffled to
another branch presided by Judge Reyes-Carpio. While the case was being tried by
Judge Reyes-Carpio, Caroline filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the strict observation
by the said judge of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage as
codified in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and that the case on the declaration on nullity be
already submitted for resolution ahead of the incidental issues, and not simultaneously.
Eric opposed this motion.
Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the Omnibus Motion, saying that the main cause of action
is the declaration of nullity of the marriage and the incidental issues are merely ancillary
incidents thereto. Eric moved for reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Reyes-
Carpio. Eric then filed for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65. CA affirmed the
judgment of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the assailed orders
issued by the trial court and dismissing the Petition for Certiorari.
RULING:
We find the petition without merit.
A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in assailing that a judge has
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Section
1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court clearly sets forth when a petition for certiorari can be
used as a proper remedy:
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 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, and granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may require. (Emphasis Ours.)
APPLICATION:
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An 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 exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction."15 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 enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."16 Furthermore, the use of a petition
for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower
court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void."17 From the foregoing definition, it is clear that
the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike 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.18 But this is not the case here.
CONCLUSION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 106878
finding that Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.
