You're currently signed in as:
User

COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

2010-10-20
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.[30]  This Court holds that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in granting separation pay to private respondent as the same is not characterized by caprice or arbitrariness being rooted in established jurisprudence.
2010-10-04
DEL CASTILLO, J.
or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism."[16] The strained and contrary interpretation of clearly worded provisions of law, which therefore should be merely applied and not interpreted, is an earmark of despotism and grave abuse of discretion.
2010-04-23
MENDOZA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.[30]
2010-04-23
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.[35] In the case at bar, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent COA in issuing the assailed Decisions. On the contrary, we hold that respondent COA's pronouncements in both assailed rulings were made in faithful compliance with its mandate and in judicious exercise of its general audit power as conferred on it by the Constitution and the pertinent laws.