Mark Abragan

Provisional Remedies Case Digest

Bahia vs Hipe

X was hired by Bahia as plumber for a vessel under a six month contract. After the lapse of the contract
X continued to work in the vessel without a new contract. Sustained back injuries while he was doing his
plumbing job. His conditioned worsened. Acting on his request he was repatriated in Manila.

A company physician examined him. Bahia paid for his rehabilitation and medications. The physician
declared him fit to work. HIpe sought a second opinion from another doctor this time not from the
company. The second doctor declared him as unfit for work.

X filed a case for payment of permanent disability to work with the Labor Arbiter. X argued that he
sustained injuries in the course of his employment. Y argued that he was repatriated not for medical
reasons but due to the termination of his contract.

Bar Question:

Can the court grant the petition for certiorari although the petitioner was not able to establish his claim
through substantial evidence?

Ruling:

No, the court cannot grant the petitioner for certiorari.

The grant of the remedy of certiorari must be given only when a petitioner can show that the court or
quasi-judicial authority gravely abused its discretion. Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgement, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in contemplation of law.

In labor disputes there is grave abuse of discretion when a decision of the NLRC are not supported by
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.

CA committed reversible error in granting Xs certiorari petition since the NLRC did not gravely abuse its
discretion in dismissing the complaint for permanent disability because X failed to establish his claim
through substantial evidence.
Sombilon vs Garay

Facts:

X and Y were previous owners of a property. The property was mortgaged as security for their loan with
Q. The property was subsequently foreclosed by Q. The property was not redeemed even after the lapse
of the redemption.

X and Y asked Z to repurchase the property in exchange they promised Garay that they will sell a portion
of the lot to him. Z found out that Q was selling the entire property for a lesser cost. So Z went to Q to
buy the said property. A writ of possession was issued in favor of Q.

X and Y moved for reconsideration of the issuance of the writ of possession because according to them Z
was their former counsel in another case.

The lower court Issued an order holding in abeyance the implementation of the writ of possession.

Bar Question:

Can the court grant the petition for certiorari even if there was failure to file a motion for
reconsideration where the decision assailed is null or violates due process?

Ruling:

Yes, the court can grant the petition for certiorari.

Under the law, once title is consolidated under the name of the purchaser, the issuance of the writ of
possession becomes a ministerial on the part of the court and no discretion is left to the court. The
regularity and validity of the mortgage or the foreclosure may not be raised as a ground to hold in
abeyance the issuance of the writ of possession. Thus, it was ministerial upon the judge to issue the writ
of possession in favor of Q and Z.

In this case, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order in abeyance. Failure to
move for a reconsideration of the assailed order prior to the availment of a special civil action for
certiorari may be dispensed with where the decision is a patent nullity or where there is a violation of
due process.

Thus, the grant of the petition for certiorari was valid.