Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 211737 2016-01-13	SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Legal standing or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act.[14] The requirement of standing, which necessarily sharpens the presentation of issues, relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies.[15] Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.[16]
	GR NO. 164978 2005-10-13	AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL v. EXEC. SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA CARPIO, J.
As a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done.[4] However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.[5]
	GR NO. 164978 2005-10-13	AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL v. EXEC. SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA CARPIO, J.
As a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done.[4] However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.[5]
	GR NO. 147956 2005-02-16	ESPERANZA S. LONGINO v. ATTY. LINA A. GENERAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for prohibition, it must first be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. Excess of jurisdiction signifies that the court, board or office has jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority.[31] The writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done.[32] However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.[33]