45 Republic v. Roque

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE (EN

BANC)
G.R. No. 204603; September 24, 2013 (R E S O L U T I O N)
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Facts:
On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a Petition 6 for declaratory relief
before the RTC, assailing the constitutionality of several sections of RA
9372. Petitioners moved to suspend the proceedings, 18 averring that certain
petitions (SC petitions) raising the issue of RA 9372’s constitutionality have
been lodged before the Court. 19 The said motion was granted in an Order
dated October 19, 2007.20 On October 5, 2010, the Court promulgated its
Decision21 in the Southern Hemisphere cases and thereby dismissed the
SC petitions.
Petitioners filed the subject motion to dismiss, 22 contending that private
respondents failed to satisfy the requisites for declaratory relief. Likewise,
they averred that the constitutionality of RA 9372 had already been upheld
by the Court in the Southern Hemisphere cases.
In their Comment/Opposition,23 private respondents countered that: (a) the
Court did not resolve the issue of RA 9372’s constitutionality in Southern
Hemisphere as the SC petitions were dismissed based purely on technical
grounds; and (b) the requisites for declaratory relief were met.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied
the subject motion to dismiss.
2. Whether or not private respondents failed to satisfy the requirements
for declaratory relief.
Ruling:
1. No. 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.28 It is well-settled that the abuse of discretion to be
qualified as "grave" must be so patent or gross as to constitute an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty or to
act at all in contemplation of law.29 In this relation, case law states
that not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion
of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. 30 The degree of
gravity, as above-described, must be met.
Applying these principles, the Court observes that while no
grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed on the part of the RTC
when it found that the Court did not pass upon the constitutionality of
RA 9372 in the Southern Hemisphere cases, it, however, exceeded
its jurisdiction when it ruled that private respondents’ petition had met
all the requisites for an action for declaratory relief. Consequently, its
denial of the subject motion to dismiss was altogether improper.
2. No. Case law states that the following are the requisites for an action
for declaratory relief:
First , the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed,
will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance; second , the terms of said documents and
the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
third , there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
fourth , there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the
"ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are
adverse; fifth , the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
sixth , adequate relief is not available through other means or other
forms of action or proceeding.34
Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes
that while the first,35 second,36 and third37 requirements appear to
exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and sixth requirements, however,
remain wanting. As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that
an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one exists
in this case.
All told, in view of the absence of the fourth and fifth requisites
for an action for declaratory relief, as well as the irrelevance of the
sixth requisite, private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief
should have been dismissed. Thus, by giving due course to the
same, it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC gravely abused its
discretion.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the April 23, 2012
and July 31, 2012 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 92 in SCA No. Q-07-60778 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
the petition for declaratory relief before the said court is hereby
DISMISSED.
Quick Digest:
● Requisites for an action for declaratory relief:
1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract
or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or
ordinance;
2. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and
require judicial construction;
3. there must have been no breach of the documents in question;
4. there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds”
of one between persons whose interests are adverse
5. the issue must be ripe for judicial determination;
6. adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or proceeding.
● 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;
Case law states that not every error in the proceedings, or every
erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of
discretion.

45 Republic v. Roque

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

45 Republic v. Roque

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

45 Republic v. Roque

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE (EN

You might also like