Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDGAR Y. SANTOS v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NO. 174263 2007-01-24	JOSE TORRES v. ABELARDO M. ABUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Santos v. Commission on Elections,[23] the Court summarized the circumstances qualifying as "good reasons," and thereby justifying execution pending appeal, thus:The following constitute "good reasons," and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal: (1) the public interest involved or the will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. x x x[24] The trial court in the instant case, relying on the cases of Lindo v. Commission on Elections[25] and Gutierrez v. Commission on Elections,[26] invoked two "good reasons" to justify its order allowing execution pending appeal. First, the order would "give substance and meaning to the people's mandate, especially since the RTC has established private respondent's right to office." Second, "barely eighteen (18) months is left to the tenure of the mayor of Viga, Catanduanes and the people have the right to be governed by the true winner of the election and their chosen official." The COMELEC found these "good reasons" sufficient.
	GR NO. 171858 2007-01-22	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. CHINESE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHIL. ISLANDS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[30] Santos v. Commission on Elections, 447 Phil. 760, 770-771 (2003).
	GR NO. 161640 2005-12-09	SAMSON B. BEDRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
A writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[23] "Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[24]
	GR No. 162788 2005-07-28	SPS. JULITA DE LA CRUZ AND FELIPE DE LA CRUZ v. PEDRO JOAQUIN PANGANIBAN, J.
Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice, and congests court dockets.[39] Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for the summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt of court.[40]
	GR No. 161418 2004-04-28	NOEL Y. REPOL v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Second. The decision of the trial court in Election Case No. T-001 was rendered on 30 December 2003, or after almost one year of trial and revision of the questioned ballots. It found Repol as the candidate with the plurality of votes. The grant of execution pending appeal was well within the discretionary powers of the trial court.[19] In the recent case of Edgar Y. Santos v. Commission on Elections (First Division) and Pedro Q. Panulaya,[20] we ruled:Between the determination by the trial court of who of the candidates won the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to proclaim, it is the court's decision that should prevail. This was sufficiently explained in the case of Ramas v. COMELEC in this wise:
	GR No. 157687 2004-02-26	FERNANDO U. BATUL v. LUCILO BAYRON CARPIO, J.
Batul likewise contends that Ramas v. COMELEC[22] and Santos v. COMELEC[23] cited by the COMELEC First Division to justify execution pending appeal are not applicable to the instant case since the election protests in those cases involved municipal officials and were filed with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"). It was logical to apply Section 2, Rule 39 ("Section 2") of the Rules of Court because the decision sought to be executed was that of the RTC. On the other hand, the instant case involves a city mayoralty position and the election protest is originally and exclusively lodged with the COMELEC. Section 2 cannot be applied even in a suppletory way, because the COMELEC Rules of Procedure expressly provide the proper procedure. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the only ground that will validly sustain execution of a decision by a COMELEC Division pending reconsideration is when the motion for reconsideration is pro forma.