Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178652 2010-12-08	SPS. REVELO VILLAMAR AND CORAZON PENULIAR- VILLAMAR v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
This is a petition[1] for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition challenges the 27 June 2007 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29524. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the 11 August 2005 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial Region 1, Branch 40, Dagupan City, in Criminal Case No. 2005-0172-D, affirming the 8 February 2005 Decision[4] of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Judicial Region 1, Branch 1, Dagupan City, in Criminal Case No. 42907.
	GR No. 189078 2010-02-11	MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS v. COMELEC BRION, J.
If the Comelec thus took it upon itself to look into and validate the matter of whether the ballots have been molested, a capricious exercise of judgment cannot, for that act alone, be imputed on the poll body. A lapse of judgment, perhaps, but not of grave abuse of discretion as is equivalent to want of jurisdiction. For, in the final analysis, Comelec's act was no more than an attempt to determine the true voting will of the good people of Alfonso, Cavite. It is a settled rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be undermined by mere technical objections.[38]
	GR NOS. 166143-47 2006-11-20	ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
The COMELEC en banc ruled that there was no failure of election in the subject municipalities of Sulu. It reasoned that it could only exercise the extraordinary remedy of declaring a failure of election in the three instances mentioned in Carlos v. Angeles,[30] in relation to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code[31] and Section 4 of RA 7166, which in gist are: (1) the election is not held, (2) the election is suspended, or (3) the election results in a failure to elect.
	GR NO. 166046 2006-03-23	MARGARITO C. SULIGUIN v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
In an election case, the Comelec is mandated to ascertain by all means within its command who the real candidate elected by the electorate is. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results. [11] In the case at bar, the simple mathematical procedure of adding the total number of votes garnered by respondent Sumague as appearing in the Statement of Votes submitted to the Comelec would readily reveal the result that he has forty-two (42) votes more than petitioner. Such result would, in effect, dislodge petitioner from said post, and entitle respondent Sumague to occupy the eighth and last seat of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna. Petitioner himself never disputed the discrepancy in the total number of votes garnered by respondent Sumague, and instead questioned the personality of the MBOC to file the petition and insisted that such petition was not filed on time.
	GR No. 143686 2002-01-15	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, when the Secretary of Labor and Employment imposed the added requirement that petitioner should consult its pilots prior to retirement, he resolved a question which was outside of the issues raised, thereby depriving petitioner an opportunity to be heard on this point.[15]