Lawyerly

GR No. 193256

2011-03-22

PERALTA, J.

Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[26] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[27] It is absent in this case.

GR No. 189034

2010-01-11

CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. Election contests, therefore, involve the adjudication not only of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also of paramount public interest considering the need to dispel uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate.[22]

GR No. 186201

2009-10-09

CARMELINDA C. BARRO

PERALTA, J.

Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction or an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[12] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[13]

GR No. 171681

2009-09-11

ABRERA v. ROMEO F. BARZA

PERALTA, J.

Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[21] It must be as patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[22] It is absent in this case.

GR No. 185401

2009-07-21

HENRY 'JUN' DUEÑAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

CORONA, J.

Finally, it is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.[51] Thus, in Robles v. HRET,[52] the Court ruled: The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts, without any action on the part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. We agree with respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal when it held:

GR No. 127980

2007-12-19

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA

REYES, R.T., J.

A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.[71] "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[72]

GR No. 175390

2007-05-08

ALIMUDIN A. MACACUA v. COMELEC

AZCUNA, J.

Petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC en banc in issuing the resolution dated November 20, 2006 denying his motion to hold a third special election in Barangay Guiawa implies capricious, whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[6]

GR NO. 172563

2007-04-27

MIKE A. FERMIN v. COMELEC

AZCUNA, J.

Petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in issuing the assailed Orders implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[9] It is absent in this case.

GR NO. 173310

2007-03-07

ANUAR J. ABUBAKAR v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

AZCUNA, J.

This Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and resolutions of HRET operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Tribunal tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[11] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[12] It is absent in this case.

GR NO. 129434

2006-08-18

TRANS MIDDLE EAST EQUITIES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Here, petitioner was afforded the opportunity to be heard. "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings, and where opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, as in this case, there is no denial of due process.[7]

GR NO. 166032

2005-02-28

ELENITA I. BALAJONDA v. COMELEC

TINGA, J.

Balajonda seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration[11]Resolution.[12] In the meantime, Francisco filed a Motion for Execution[13] dated 5 February 2004, praying for a writ of execution in accordance with Section 2(a) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court [Sec. 2(a), Rule 39], which allows discretionary execution of judgment upon good reasons to be stated in the order.[14]

	GR No. 193256 2011-03-22	ABC PARTY LIST v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[26] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[27] It is absent in this case.
	GR No. 189034 2010-01-11	CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. Election contests, therefore, involve the adjudication not only of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also of paramount public interest considering the need to dispel uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate.[22]
	GR No. 186201 2009-10-09	CARMELINDA C. BARRO PERALTA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction or an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[12] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[13]
	GR No. 171681 2009-09-11	ABRERA v. ROMEO F. BARZA PERALTA, J.
Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[21] It must be as patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[22] It is absent in this case.
	GR No. 185401 2009-07-21	HENRY 'JUN' DUEÑAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL CORONA, J.
Finally, it is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.[51] Thus, in Robles v. HRET,[52] the Court ruled: The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts, without any action on the part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. We agree with respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal when it held:
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.[71] "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[72]
	GR No. 175390 2007-05-08	ALIMUDIN A. MACACUA v. COMELEC AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC en banc in issuing the resolution dated November 20, 2006 denying his motion to hold a third special election in Barangay Guiawa implies capricious, whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[6]
	GR NO. 172563 2007-04-27	MIKE A. FERMIN v. COMELEC AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in issuing the assailed Orders implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[9] It is absent in this case.
	GR NO. 173310 2007-03-07	ANUAR J. ABUBAKAR v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AZCUNA, J.
This Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and resolutions of HRET operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Tribunal tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[11] The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[12] It is absent in this case.
	GR NO. 129434 2006-08-18	TRANS MIDDLE EAST EQUITIES v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Here, petitioner was afforded the opportunity to be heard. "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings, and where opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, as in this case, there is no denial of due process.[7]
	GR NO. 166032 2005-02-28	ELENITA I. BALAJONDA v. COMELEC TINGA, J.
Balajonda seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration[11]Resolution.[12] In the meantime, Francisco filed a Motion for Execution[13] dated 5 February 2004, praying for a writ of execution in accordance with Section 2(a) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court [Sec. 2(a), Rule 39], which allows discretionary execution of judgment upon good reasons to be stated in the order.[14]

FERNANDO U. BATUL v. LUCILO BAYRON