This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Borjal appealed the order of dismissal to the COMELEC arguing that the MeTC erred (1) in applying the Rules of Civil Procedure on the preliminary conference in the election protest and in misinforming him of the contents of a preliminary conference brief in its Notice of Pre-Trial Conference; (2) assuming said notice is not defective, it was issued prematurely, contrary to the mandate of Section 1, Rule 9 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC; (3) in applying the ruling in Cabrera v. COMELEC[11] considering that the factual circumstances are not foursquare with the present case; and (4) in dismissing the election protest by holding that his Preliminary Conference Brief failed to comply with the required contents under Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.[12] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
|||||
| In a special civil action for certiorari, the burden rests on petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent issuing the impugned order, decision or resolution.[23] "Grave abuse of discretion" is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.[24] It must be 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 and hostility.[25] "Grave abuse of discretion" arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.[26] | |||||
|
2009-07-21 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The only prerequisite to the exercise by the HRET of its prerogative under Rule 88 was its own determination that the evidence thus far presented could affect the officially proclaimed results. Much like the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents, the determination of whether the evidence could influence the officially proclaimed results was a highly technical undertaking, a function best left to the specialized expertise of the HRET. In Abubakar v. HRET,[46] this Court declined to review the ruling of the HRET on a matter that was discretionary and technical. The same sense of respect for and deference to the constitutional mandate of the HRET should now animate the Court in resolving this case. | |||||