Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE TORRES v. ABELARDO M. ABUNDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 206952 2013-10-22	PARTY-LIST v. COMELEC REYES, J.
The actions of the group amounted to declaring untruthful statements, which the Commission on Elections correctly considered as a ground for the cancellation of the petitioner's Certificate of Registration under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7941. Again, to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be such "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility."[40] It "must be so patent and gross to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law."[41] The Commission on Elections, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the assailed Resolution.
	GR No. 192274 2012-02-08	NORBERTO LEE v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice.[12] Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[13]
	GR No. 183297 2009-12-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. OMAR G. MARUHOM NACHURA, J.
In fine, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of execution and the notice of garnishment to satisfy the judgment in favor of respondents could not be considered grave abuse of discretion. The term grave abuse of discretion, in its juridical sense, connotes capricious, despotic, oppressive, or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner by reason of passion and hostility. The word capricious, usually used in tandem with the term arbitrary, conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative.[21] In this case, NPC utterly failed to demonstrate caprice or arbitrariness on the part of the RTC in granting respondents' motion for execution. Accordingly, the CA committed no reversible error in dismissing NPC's petition for certiorari.
	GR NO. 159517-18 2009-06-30	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The term grave abuse of discretion, in its juridical sense, connotes capricious, despotic, oppressive or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner by reason of passion and hostility. The word capricious, usually used in tandem with the term arbitrary, conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative.[12]
	GR No. 181688 2009-06-05	DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. v. ALBERTO J. RAZA VELASCO JR., J.
We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" line is not some magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights.[7] Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[8]
	GR No. 176276 2008-11-28	PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CA NACHURA, J.
The term grave abuse of discretion, in its juridical sense, connotes capricious, despotic, oppressive or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner by reason of passion and hostility. The word capricious, usually used in tandem with the term arbitrary, conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. Thus, when seeking the corrective hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion is imperative.[12] In this case, Philhealth utterly failed to demonstrate caprice or arbitrariness on the part of the CA.