This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Hayudini v. COMELEC,[18] we sustained the COMELEC's liberal treatment of respondent's petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's COC despite its failure to comply with Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 9523, i.e., pertaining to the period to file petition and to provide sufficient explanation as to why his petition was not served personally on petitioner, respectively, and held that: As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed in order that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office, for an indefinite period, one whose right to it is uncertain and under suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be immediately cleared, not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest, which can only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of procedure that protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action. This principle was reiterated in the cases of Tolentino v. Commission on Elections and De Castro v. Commission on Elections, where the Court held that "in exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its mandate to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in resolving election disputes." | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As settled in jurisprudence, grave abuse of discretion is the arbitrary exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be condemned as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, such an abuse must be patent and gross.[44] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| To rule as such is not tantamount to disrespecting the will of the electorate. As was very recently said in Hayudini v. COMELEC:[250] | |||||
|
2014-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, is an independent action that is available only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[44] It is a legal remedy that is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues and is not meant to correct simple errors of judgment.[45] More importantly, it will only prosper if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and is actually proved to exist.[46] | |||||