This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Dueñas, Jr. v. HRET,[38] we defined grave abuse of discretion, viz: It is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Ordinary abuse of discretion is insufficient. The abuse of discretion must be grave, that is, the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of the law. In other words, for a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion. There is also grave abuse of discretion when there is a contravention of the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. x x x.[39] (Citation omitted) | |||||
|
2010-05-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court has long declared in Dueñas, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,[6] that the HRET was acting well within the rules when it ordered the continuation of revision of ballots. Petitioner cannot resurrect his claims, which had been finally adjudged unmeritorious by this Court, through the present petition. Thus, the fact that the HRET went on with the revision of ballots in 75% of the counter-protested precincts cannot be considered as grave abuse of discretion on the part of the electoral tribunal. | |||||