Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SADIKUL SAHALI v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 181377 2009-04-24	RODANTE MARCOLETA v. COMELEC CARPIO MORALES, J.
For the most part, the Comelec was well within its authority to order a re-hearing, it having the inherent power to amend or control its processes and orders before these become final and executory.[25] It can even proceed to issue an order motu proprio to reconsider, recall or set aside an earlier resolution which is still under its control.[26]
	GR No. 160657 2004-06-30	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. NIMFA P. ASENSI TINGA, J.
We agree with the respondent. So, we dismiss the petition. There is little need to elaborate on the reasons, which are after all, elementary in procedural law. The special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.[14] The grave abuse of discretion imputed to the Court of Appeals was its finding that respondent was not guilty of the charges against her, a charge that if true, would only constitute an error in law. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by special civil action for certiorari.[15] Neither is certiorari warranted if there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[16] The remedy to the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is a petition for review under Rule 45.[17]
	GR No. 143351 2000-09-14	MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The Court has given due emphasis to the fact that its power of judicial review over final decisions of constitutional bodies like the Electoral Tribunals are wielded in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, that is, it comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution itself calls for remedial action.[38] Grave abuse of discretion, as we had occasion to describe, 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.[39]
	GR No. 125586 2000-06-29	DR. TERESITA G. DOMALANTA v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, therefore, must be dismissed. It is grounded on alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Only recently in Sadikul Sahali v. COMELEC,[24] the Court, citing Garcia, et al. v. HRET,[25] said:Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if there is a concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and (b) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding. There must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.