Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROGELIO P. JUAN v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190734 2010-03-26	BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts and its jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. Absent such grave abuse of discretion, this Court shall not interfere with the electoral tribunal's exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction.[5] Grave abuse of discretion has been described in Juan v. Commission on Elections,[6] as follows: Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. It means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction; it contemplates a situation where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law. The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment; any resort to the said petition under x x x Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues. Thus, it is imperative for the petitioner to show caprice and arbitrariness on the part of the COMELEC [or, in this case, the tribunal] whose exercise of discretion is being assailed.[7]
	GR No. 191084 2010-03-25	JOSELITO R. MENDOZA v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
Time and again, it has been held that this Court is not a trier of facts. To conclude, I quote from Juan v. Commission on Elections,[45] wherein the Court said: The Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of the COMELEC on this matter operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. Verily, only where grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the COMELEC's judgment.
	GR No. 177179 2009-06-05	V.C. CADANGEN v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
The Court emphasizes that the sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and it does not include a review of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence.[18] The findings of fact made by the COMELEC, or by any other administrative agency exercising expertise in its particular field of competence, are binding on the Court.[19] The Court is not a trier of facts;[20] it is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of factual allegations.[21] The Court's function, as mandated by Section 1,[22] Article VIII of the Constitution, is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, this Court will have no occasion to exercise its corrective power. It has no authority to inquire into what it thinks is apparent error.[23]
	GR No. 174620 2009-03-04	ALDO B. CORDIA v. JOEL G. MONFORTE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The object of the appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty.[16] When placed in issue, the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents, which involves a question of fact, is best left to the determination of the COMELEC.[17]
	GR No. 176724 2008-10-06	MAYOR KENNEDY B. BASMALA v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
The COMELEC, in resolving the case, examined the records of the protest, the evidence submitted by the parties, and the pertinent election documents. As it is the specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country, its findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence are final, non-reviewable and binding upon the Court.[16] Furthermore, the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC.[17] Let it be reiterated that the Court is not a trier of facts[18] and it will only step in if there is a showing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 136225 2008-04-23	FFCBL v. OMBUDSMAN DESIERTO REYES, R.T., J.
Findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise are afforded great weight by the courts. Absent a substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed.[18]