This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A reorganization "involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions."[20] It alters the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them[21] to make the bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of the public clientele as authorized by law.[22] It could result in the loss of one's position through removal or abolition of an office. For a reorganization for the purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to be valid, however, it must pass the test of good faith, otherwise it is void ab initio. [23] | |||||
|
2004-03-02 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| We disagree. None of these flaws appear in this case. Grave abuse of discretion means the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or 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 or hostility.[84] No abuse of discretion was established by Megaworld. On the contrary, what is apparent is Megaworld's effort to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Arbitral Tribunal simply because of the unfavorable judgment against it. Megaworld's assertion that there was misapprehension of facts and that the evidence is insufficient to support the decision is also untenable. The Decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Court of Appeals adequately explain the reasons therefor and are supported by substantial evidence. | |||||