Cabrera v. Lapid

Facts:

Petitioner stated in her complaint-affidavit that she entered into a lease agreement with the Municipality of Sasmuan over a tract of land for the purpose of devoting it to fishpond operations. According to petitioner, she had spent approximately P5,000,000.00 for its construction before the fishpond operations commenced in August 1995. A month later, petitioner learned from newspaper reports of the impending demolition of her fishpond as it was purportedly illegal and blocked the flow of the Pasak River. Thus, petitioner sent the fishpond administrator to dissuade respondents from destroying her property. The property was demolished on 10 October 1995 by dynamite blasting.

On 13 May 1996, the Ombudsman issued the assailed Resolution, dismissing petitioner's complaint. The petitioner sought reconsideration of the Resolution but the Ombudsman affirmed its Resolution.

Issue:

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman erred and exceeded its authority in ruling that the lease contract between the municipality and petitioner is null and voild.

Held:

By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

Grave abuse of discretion should be differentiated from an error in judgment. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.