This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case and will not be interfered with, except where there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the court.[36] For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.[37] In other words, mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[38] | |||||
|
2010-03-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, in this very situation, Basmala v. Commission on Elections[87] fittingly states that "it is an exercise in futility indeed for the Court to still indulge itself in a review of the records and in an academic discussion of the applicable legal principles to determine who really won the elections, because whatever judgment is reached, the same can no longer have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, can no longer be enforced." | |||||