This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The actions of the group amounted to declaring untruthful statements, which the Commission on Elections correctly considered as a ground for the cancellation of the petitioner's Certificate of Registration under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7941. Again, to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be such "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility."[40] It "must be so patent and gross to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law."[41] The Commission on Elections, therefore, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the assailed Resolution. | |||||
|
2013-04-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We remind the petitioners that the findings of fact of the COMELEC are generally binding on the Court, unless its factual conclusions are clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence.[19] The petitioners have not demonstrated that its case fall within this narrow exception. | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| For a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to prosper, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions must be proven to have acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. "Grave abuse of discretion" has been defined as "a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough, it must be so grave as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[21] It should be stressed that it is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave.[22] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO, 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.[24] It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave.[25] 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.[26] In this case, we see no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC En Banc in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Motion to Admit Verified Copies of Motion for Reconsideration was filed only after the denial by the COMELEC En Banc of the original and unverified motion for reconsideration. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, a special civil action for certiorari is limited to the determination of whether or not public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed decisions.[26] Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[27] We do not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in this case. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In Benito v. Commission on Elections,[114] we held that:Grave abuse of discretion means "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion; such abuse must be grave. (Citations omitted)[115] It is settled that there is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence,[116] or when executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.[117] | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Benito v. Commission on Elections,[18] the Court defined grave abuse of discretion as follows:Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion, such abuse must be grave. (Emphasis supplied) Assuming that PILTEL's petition for certiorari was proper, PILTEL nevertheless miserably failed to show that the NTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the NTC Order. The NTC is the regulatory agency of the national government with jurisdiction over all telecommunications entities. [19] The law expressly vests in the NTC the power and discretion to grant a provisional permit or authority.[20] In this case, the NTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the questioned Order. The NTC Order explicitly provides for the basis of the issuance of the PA, as follows: | |||||