This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Doctrinally entrenched is the rule that in a petition for certiorari, findings of fact of administrative bodies, such as respondent COMELEC in the instant case, are final unless grave abuse of discretion has marred such factual determinations/~ Clearly, where there is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or error of law in the questioned Resolutions, we may not review the factual findings of COMELEC, nor substitute its own findings on the sufficiency of evidence.[33] | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Thus, as a matter of law, our ruling of November 11, 2008 to dismiss the petition for late filing cannot but be correct. This ruling is not without its precedent; we have previously ordered a similar dismissal in the earlier case of Domingo v. Commission on Elections.[7] The Court, too, has countless times in the past stressed that the Rules of Court must be followed. Thus, we had this to say in Fortich v. Corona:[8] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The opportunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court during a formal hearing.[25] There is due process when a party is able to present evidence in the form of pleadings.[26] However, the COMELEC did not give Bautista such opportunity to explain his side. The COMELEC en banc issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584 without prior notice and hearing. | |||||