This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| We have ruled that "not every error in the proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes grave abuse of discretion."[31] Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as follows: By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. x x x.[32] | |||||
|
2014-03-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Constitution vests COA, as guardian of public funds, with enough latitude to determine, prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds.[13] The COA is generally accorded complete discretion in the exercise of its constitutional duty and the Court generally sustains its decisions in recognition of its expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce.[14] | |||||