Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181613 2009-09-11	ROSALINDA A. PENERA v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and it does not include a review of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence.[25] Because of its fact-finding facilities and its knowledge derived from actual experience, the COMELEC is in a peculiarly advantageous position to evaluate, appreciate and decide on factual questions before it. Factual findings of the COMELEC, based on its own assessments and duly supported by evidence, are conclusive on this Court, more so in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud, or error of law in the questioned resolutions. Unless any of these causes are clearly substantiated, the Court will not interfere with the findings of fact of the COMELEC.[26]
	GR NO. 174263 2007-01-24	JOSE TORRES v. ABELARDO M. ABUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
To grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (2) there must be "good reasons" for the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting execution pending appeal must state the "good reasons."[22]
	GR No. 157957 2003-09-18	CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
To grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (2) there must be "good reasons" for the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting execution pending appeal must state the "good reasons."[23] Petitioner Navarosa concedes respondent Esto's compliance with the first and third requisites. What she contests is the trial court's finding that there are "good reasons" to order discretionary execution of its decision.