Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FLORANTE S. QUIZON v. COMELEC and ROBERTO VILLANUEVA PUNO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	UDK-15143 2015-01-21	IN MATTER OF: SAVE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND LEONEN, J.
The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be performed is ministerial.[45] An act is ministerial when it does not require the exercise of judgment and the act is performed in compliance with a legal mandate.[46] In a petition for mandamus, the burden of proof is on petitioner to show that one is entitled to the performance of a legal right and that respondent has a corresponding duty to perform the act.[47] Mandamus will not lie "to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law."[48]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Pedro Cojuangco, Josephine C. Reyes, Teresita C. Lopa, Jose Cojuangco, Jr., and Paz C. Teopaco were the incorporators of HLI. [30]
	GR No. 192856 2011-03-08	FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In any case, the point raised by the COMELEC is irrelevant in resolving the present controversy. It has long been settled that pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, a final judgment before the election is required for the votes of a disqualified candidate to be considered "stray." In the absence of any final judgment of disqualification against Gonzalez, the votes cast in his favor cannot be considered stray.[56] After proclamation, taking of oath and assumption of office by Gonzalez, jurisdiction over the matter of his qualifications, as well as questions regarding the conduct of election and contested returns - were transferred to the HRET as the constitutional body created to pass upon the same. The Court thus does not concur with the COMELEC's flawed assertion of jurisdiction premised on its power to suspend the effects of proclamation in cases involving disqualification of candidates based on commission of prohibited acts and election offenses. As we held in Limkaichong, any allegations as to the invalidity of the proclamation will not prevent the HRET from assuming jurisdiction over all matters essential to a member's qualification to sit in the House of Representatives.[57]
	GR No. 191998 2010-12-07	WALDEN F. BELLO v. COMELEC BRION, J.
As to the prohibition aspect of G.R. No. 191998 - i.e., to prevent the COMELEC from canvassing AGPP's votes, and from proclaiming it a winner - we find that this has been mooted by the supervening participation, election and proclamation of AGPP after it secured the required percentage of votes in the May 10, 2010 elections. The prohibition issue has been rendered moot since there is nothing now to prohibit in light of the supervening events. A moot case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon (in this case, the prevention of the specified acts) can no longer be done. Under the circumstances, we have to recognize the futility of the petition and to dismiss it on the ground of mootness since we cannot provide the mandamus petitioners any substantial relief.[47]