Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NO. 174263 2007-01-24	JOSE TORRES v. ABELARDO M. ABUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[27] Navarosa v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157957, September 18, 2003, 411 SCRA 369, 385-386.
	GR NO. 169885 2006-07-25	ARTEMIO PEDRAGOZA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
On petitioner's alternative contention that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the findings of the First Division, we find no merit to this claim. In his petition, petitioner contented himself with making the sweeping charge that the COMELEC En Banc's ruling is contrary to "law, x x x evidence and existing jurisprudence" without substantiating his claim. Perhaps realizing this, petitioner, in his Reply to respondent's Comment, reproduced the grounds he raised in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. This does not suffice to sustain his claim of grave abuse of discretion. The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment but "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility."[12] We have gone over the grounds petitioner raised in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc and we find no such grave error tainting the Resolution of 30 September 2005.