This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Unfortunately, the courts a quo chose to disregard all of PNB's documentary evidence and ruled in favor of Pasimio. This to us is a blatant mistake on the part of the RTC and the CA because all that Pasimio put forward against PNB's evidence, for the most part documentary, were unsubstantiated denials and bare, self-serving assertions. To borrow from Pecson v. Commission on Elections,[29] citing Almeida v. Court of Appeals,[30] the use of wrong or irrelevant considerations, reliance on clearly erroneous factual findings or giving too much weight to one factor in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision-maker's action with grave abuse of discretion. | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
|||||
| Significantly, the COMELEC, in the said March 2, 2009 Order, endorsed the case to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for proper investigation, in view of petitioner's serious allegations that the pertinent election documents in the custody of the COMELEC were fake and spurious, and that COMELEC records were substituted in connivance with someone from the Commission.[16] The obvious intent of this endorsement was to utilize the NBI findings as basis for appropriate action against those who perpetrated the alleged fraud if, indeed, fraud had been committed. Parenthetically, Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented from the majority opinion in the March 2, 2009 Order.[17] | |||||
|
2010-02-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion is a concept that defies exact definition, but generally refers to "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction"; the abuse of discretion 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.[23] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.[24] Use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision maker's action with grave abuse of discretion.[25] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Pecson v. COMELEC,[6] the Court ruled that: x x x decisions of the courts in election protest cases, resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and after full-blown adversarial proceedings, should at least be given similar worth and recognition as decisions of the board of canvassers. This is especially true when attended by other equally weighty circumstances of the case, such as the shortness of the term of the contested elective office, of the case.[7] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||