Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEEM AMERODDIN SARANGANI v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 172278 2007-03-29	LYDIA R. PAGADUAN v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The settled principle is that "unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision will not be interfered with by this Court."[6] Grave abuse of discretion is described in this wise:There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[7] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 170702 2006-06-16	INGATUN G. ISTARUL v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It should be borne in mind that "unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision will not be interfered with by this Court."[8] In this case, petitioner fails to convince the Court that the COMELEC 1st Division and En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
	GR NO. 167033 2006-04-12	ESTRELITA 'NENG' JULIANO v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Indeed, it is well settled that "unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision will not be interfered with by this Court."[11] Considering, though, that the Resolution of COMELEC 2nd Division dated October 13, 2004 was affirmed merely because the voting of the COMELEC En Banc on the Resolution dated February 10, 2005 penned by Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier (which reversed and set aside the Resolution dated October 13, 2004), was equally divided, this Court is compelled to look deeper into this case.