Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERT E. OLANOLAN v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185140 2009-06-30	JERRY B. AGUILAR v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
This rule should apply whether the motion fee has been paid or not, as what happened in Olanolan v. Commission on Elections.[23] Indeed, Rule 40, Section 18[24] of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives discretion to the COMELEC, in this case, to the en banc and not to the division, either to refuse to take action until the motion fee is paid, or to dismiss the action or proceeding.[25]
	GR No. 185140 2009-06-30	JERRY B. AGUILAR v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
This rule should apply whether the motion fee has been paid or not, as what happened in Olanolan v. Commission on Elections.[23] Indeed, Rule 40, Section 18[24] of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives discretion to the COMELEC, in this case, to the en banc and not to the division, either to refuse to take action until the motion fee is paid, or to dismiss the action or proceeding.[25]
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The term "grave abuse of discretion" in its judicial sense connotes a capricious, despotic, oppressive or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The word "capricious," usually used in tandem with the term "arbitrary," conveys the notion of willful and unreasoning action.[42]
	GR No. 183171 2008-08-14	FRANCISCO S. TATAD v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS REYES, R.T., J.
An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy. In such a case, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[12] We have consistently held that courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief will be granted.[13]
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have previously ruled that grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates and contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[27] 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.[28]
	GR NO. 162580 2006-01-27	ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We have previously ruled that grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[13] 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.[14]