Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PERLA GARCIA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 206612 2015-08-17	TOYOTA ALABANG v. EDWIN GAMES SERENO, C.J.
[12] Garcia v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 371 Phil. 280 (1999).
	GR No. 168779 2007-09-14	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO NACHURA, J.
It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined 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 personal hostility.[15]
	GR NO. 163756 2005-01-26	GEORGIDI B. AGGABAO v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if there is concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and (b) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. There must be capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.[20]
	GR No. 125586 2000-06-29	DR. TERESITA G. DOMALANTA v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, therefore, must be dismissed. It is grounded on alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Only recently in Sadikul Sahali v. COMELEC,[24] the Court, citing Garcia, et al. v. HRET,[25] said:Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if there is a concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and (b) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. There must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.
	GR No. 134169 2000-02-02	SADIKUL SAHALI v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The present petition for certiorari, therefore, must be dismissed. It is grounded on alleged grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction. In the recent case of Perla Garcia, et al. v. HRET, et al.,[22] this Court had occasion to rule:Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if there is concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess or jurisdiction, and (b) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. There must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.[23]