Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GILBERTO CANTORIA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 203646 2013-04-16	SAMSON S. ALCANTARA v. COMELEC BRION, J.
With clear jurisdictional authority to resolve the issue of party leadership and party identity, this Court will only be justified in interfering with the COMELEC's action under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court if the petitioners can establish that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. By grave abuse of discretion is generally meant the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. Such abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[15] The petitioners failed to hurdle this barrier.
	GR No. 185140 2009-06-30	JERRY B. AGUILAR v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
Being a violation of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the assailed September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders are null and void. They were issued by the COMELEC First Division with grave abuse of discretion. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility.The abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[26] Clearly, by arrogating unto itself a power constitutionally lodged in the Commission en banc, the COMELEC First Division, in this case, exercised judgment in excess of, or without, jurisdiction.
	GR No. 177179 2009-06-05	V.C. CADANGEN v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
Incumbent on petitioner is the duty to show that the COMELEC, in denying the petition for registration, gravely abused its discretion. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility.The abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law.[16] Here, petitioner failed to demonstrate, and neither do we find, that the COMELEC, through the questioned issuances, gravely abused its discretion.
	GR No. 176724 2008-10-06	MAYOR KENNEDY B. BASMALA v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
This notwithstanding, the Court finds that no grave abuse of discretion tainted the assailed COMELEC resolutions as to warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility.The abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[15]
	GR NO. 170300 2007-02-09	BARTOLOME BALINGIT v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. Such abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[7]