Lawyerly

GR No. 212686

2015-09-28

SERGIO R. OSMENA III v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Specifically Section 51 (m) of the EPIRA empowered PSALM "[t]o restructure the sale, privatization or disposition of NPC assets and IPP contracts and/or their energy output based on such terms and conditions which shall optimize the value and sale prices of said assets." Any act of PSALM that violates these provisions and other applicable laws may constitute grave abuse of discretion. There is grave abuse of discretion (1) when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (2) when it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.[23]

GR No. 210164

2015-08-18

ROMMEL C. ARNADO v. COMELEC

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the primordial issue to be resolved is whether the respondent tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolution. And as a matter of policy, this Court will not interfere with the resolutions of the Comelec unless it is shown that it had committed grave abuse of discretion.[21] Thus, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, a Rule 64 petition will not prosper. Jurisprudence, on the other hand, defines grave abuse of discretion as the "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."[22] "Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave."[23] Grave abuse of discretion has likewise been defined as an act done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[24]

GR No. 173616

2014-06-25

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. CA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.[62] In this case, the Court of Appeals issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 granting Miaque's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction contrary to Section 21, Rule 70 and other relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as well as this Court's pronouncements in Teresa T. Gonzales La'O & Co., Inc.[63] and Nisce.[64] Thus, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603.

GR No. 203766

2013-04-02

ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial A. Via the COMELEC En Banc's automatic review of the COMELEC Division's resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations Resolution dated 23 November 2012[8] 1 204379 12-099 (PLM) Alagad ng Sining (ASIN) - The "artists" sector is not considered marginalized and underrepresented;

GR No. 201112

2012-06-13

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

Petitioners argue that the Comelec's act of exercising its OTP the PCOS machines from Smartmatic-TIM after the period had already lapsed is illegal and unlawful.[16] They explain that the period within which the Comelec may exercise the OTP could last only until December 31, 2010 without extension as provided in the Comelec's bid bulletin.[17] They further assert that the Comelec's acceptance of Smartmatic-TIM's unilateral extension of the option period constitutes substantial amendment to the AES contract giving undue benefit to the winning bidder not available to the other bidders.[18] Petitioners also contend that the Comelec's decision to purchase and use the PCOS machines is unconstitutional, as it allows the Comelec to abrogate its constitutional duty to safeguard the election process by subcontracting the same to an independent provider (Smartmatic-TIM), who controls the software that safeguards the entire election process. The purchase of the PCOS machines for use in the May 2013 elections would be tantamount to a complete surrender and abdication of the Comelec's constitutional mandate in favor of Smartmatic-TIM. The control of the software and process verification systems places the Comelec at the end of the process as it merely receives the report of Smartmatic-TIM. This, according to petitioners, amounts to a direct transgression of the exclusive mandate of the Comelec completely to take charge of the enforcement and administration of the conduct of elections. [19] Lastly, petitioners aver that the Comelec's act of deliberately ignoring the palpable infirmities and defects of the PCOS machines, as duly confirmed by forensic experts, is in violation of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, as it fails to safeguard the integrity of the votes. They went on by saying that the subject PCOS machines lack security features which can guaranty the secrecy and sanctity of our votes in direct contravention of RA 9369 which requires that the automated election system must at least possess an adequate security feature against unauthorized access. In deciding to purchase the PCOS machines despite the above-enumerated defects, the Comelec's decision are claimed to be unconstitutional.[20]

GR No. 183789

2011-08-24

POWER SECTOR ASSETS v. POZZOLANIC PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED

PEREZ, J.

Finally, in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,[58] the Court nullified the award by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) of a contract for the automation of the counting and canvassing of the ballots in the 2004 elections on the ground, among others, that it permitted the winning bidder to change and alter the subject of the contract, in effect allowing a substantive amendment without public bidding.[59] Said the Supreme Court therein: "it is contrary to the very concept of public bidding to permit a variance between the conditions under which the bids are invited and those under which proposals are submitted and approved; or, as in this case, the conditions under which the bid is won and those under which the awarded contract will be complied with. The substantive amendment of the contract bidded out, without any public bidding - after the bidding process had been concluded - is violative of the public policy on public biddings, x x x. The whole point in going through the public bidding exercise was completely lost. The very rationale of public bidding was totally subverted by the Commission."[60]

GR No. 189078

2010-03-30

MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS v. COMELEC

BRION, J.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act (1) is done contrary to the Constitution, law , or jurisprudence;[15] or (2) is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or personal bias;16 the abuse 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.[17]

GR No. 181809

2010-02-17

ROSE MARIE D. DOROMAL v. HERNAN G. BIRON

DEL CASTILLO, J.

An act done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[15] In the instant case, we find that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the exclusion of the subject returns. The ruling contravenes clear legal provisions as well as long standing jurisprudence on the admissibility of the certificate of votes and the appreciation of election returns. Lamentably, the refusal of the COMELEC to heed this Court's repeated pronouncements has again led to the disenfranchisement of voters in this case. The writ, therefore, lies to correct this grossly abusive exercise of discretion.

GR No. 190156

2010-02-12

LEONOR DANGAN-CORRAL v. COMELEC

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Consequently, to allow the execution of such a grossly infirm RTC Decision in disregard of established jurisprudence and clear and straightforward rules is arbitrary and whimsical and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11]

GR No. 188456

2009-09-10

H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC

VELASCO JR., J.

Petitioners have made much of the Court's ruling in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines [Infotech] v. Comelec,[58] arguing in relation thereto that the partnership of Smartmatic and TIM does not meet the Court's definition of a joint venture which requires "community of interest in the performance of the subject matter."

GR NO. 167741

2007-07-12

REPUBLIC v. MAJ. GEN. CARLOS FLORES GARCIA

CORONA, J.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[10] Here, the Sandiganbayan's January 14, 2005 resolution was clearly contrary to Tolentino.

GR NO. 152651

2006-08-07

ANDABAI T. ARIMAO v. SAADEA P. TAHER

TINGA, J.

Neither is the petition for prohibition before the trial court violative of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Said doctrine precludes a court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[38] An exception to this rule is when the issue raised is a purely legal question, well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the court and not the administrative agency.[39] In the instant case, the legal question of whether a memorandum of the ARMM Governor, ordering the reinstatement of an employee declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal question which should be resolved by the courts. For the same reason that the issues to be resolved in this case are purely legal in nature, respondent need not abide by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[40] Besides, to allow the matter to remain with the Office of the ARMM Governor for resolution would be self-defeating and useless and cause unnecessary delay since it was the same office which gave the conflicting issuances on petitioner's reinstatement.

GR NO. 161065

2005-04-15

EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioners invoke our ruling in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,[4] Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[5] and Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections[6] that where the subject matter of a case is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest, then this fact alone gives them legal standing to institute the instant petition. Petitioners contend that the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan is not just a mere reorganization but a revamp or overhaul of the COA, with a "spillover effect" upon its audit performance. This will have an impact upon the rest of the government bodies subject to its audit supervision, thus, should be treated as a matter of transcendental importance. Consequently, petitioners' legal standing should be recognized and upheld.

GR No. 157526

2004-04-28

EMILIANA TORAL KARE v. COMELEC

PANGANIBAN, J.

For violating the law and the clear jurisprudence on this matter, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion.[31]

	GR No. 212686 2015-09-28	SERGIO R. OSMENA III v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Specifically Section 51 (m) of the EPIRA empowered PSALM "[t]o restructure the sale, privatization or disposition of NPC assets and IPP contracts and/or their energy output based on such terms and conditions which shall optimize the value and sale prices of said assets." Any act of PSALM that violates these provisions and other applicable laws may constitute grave abuse of discretion. There is grave abuse of discretion (1) when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (2) when it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.[23]
	GR No. 210164 2015-08-18	ROMMEL C. ARNADO v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the primordial issue to be resolved is whether the respondent tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolution. And as a matter of policy, this Court will not interfere with the resolutions of the Comelec unless it is shown that it had committed grave abuse of discretion.[21] Thus, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, a Rule 64 petition will not prosper. Jurisprudence, on the other hand, defines grave abuse of discretion as the "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction."[22] "Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave."[23] Grave abuse of discretion has likewise been defined as an act done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[24]
	GR No. 173616 2014-06-25	AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.[62] In this case, the Court of Appeals issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 granting Miaque's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction contrary to Section 21, Rule 70 and other relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as well as this Court's pronouncements in Teresa T. Gonzales La'O & Co., Inc.[63] and Nisce.[64] Thus, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01603.
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
G.R. No. SPP No. Group Grounds for Denial A. Via the COMELEC En Banc's automatic review of the COMELEC Division's resolutions approving registration of groups/organizations Resolution dated 23 November 2012[8] 1 204379 12-099 (PLM) Alagad ng Sining (ASIN) - The "artists" sector is not considered marginalized and underrepresented;
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Petitioners argue that the Comelec's act of exercising its OTP the PCOS machines from Smartmatic-TIM after the period had already lapsed is illegal and unlawful.[16] They explain that the period within which the Comelec may exercise the OTP could last only until December 31, 2010 without extension as provided in the Comelec's bid bulletin.[17] They further assert that the Comelec's acceptance of Smartmatic-TIM's unilateral extension of the option period constitutes substantial amendment to the AES contract giving undue benefit to the winning bidder not available to the other bidders.[18] Petitioners also contend that the Comelec's decision to purchase and use the PCOS machines is unconstitutional, as it allows the Comelec to abrogate its constitutional duty to safeguard the election process by subcontracting the same to an independent provider (Smartmatic-TIM), who controls the software that safeguards the entire election process. The purchase of the PCOS machines for use in the May 2013 elections would be tantamount to a complete surrender and abdication of the Comelec's constitutional mandate in favor of Smartmatic-TIM. The control of the software and process verification systems places the Comelec at the end of the process as it merely receives the report of Smartmatic-TIM. This, according to petitioners, amounts to a direct transgression of the exclusive mandate of the Comelec completely to take charge of the enforcement and administration of the conduct of elections. [19] Lastly, petitioners aver that the Comelec's act of deliberately ignoring the palpable infirmities and defects of the PCOS machines, as duly confirmed by forensic experts, is in violation of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, as it fails to safeguard the integrity of the votes. They went on by saying that the subject PCOS machines lack security features which can guaranty the secrecy and sanctity of our votes in direct contravention of RA 9369 which requires that the automated election system must at least possess an adequate security feature against unauthorized access. In deciding to purchase the PCOS machines despite the above-enumerated defects, the Comelec's decision are claimed to be unconstitutional.[20]
	GR No. 183789 2011-08-24	POWER SECTOR ASSETS v. POZZOLANIC PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED PEREZ, J.
Finally, in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,[58] the Court nullified the award by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) of a contract for the automation of the counting and canvassing of the ballots in the 2004 elections on the ground, among others, that it permitted the winning bidder to change and alter the subject of the contract, in effect allowing a substantive amendment without public bidding.[59] Said the Supreme Court therein: "it is contrary to the very concept of public bidding to permit a variance between the conditions under which the bids are invited and those under which proposals are submitted and approved; or, as in this case, the conditions under which the bid is won and those under which the awarded contract will be complied with. The substantive amendment of the contract bidded out, without any public bidding - after the bidding process had been concluded - is violative of the public policy on public biddings, x x x. The whole point in going through the public bidding exercise was completely lost. The very rationale of public bidding was totally subverted by the Commission."[60]
	GR No. 189078 2010-03-30	MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS v. COMELEC BRION, J.
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act (1) is done contrary to the Constitution, law , or jurisprudence;[15] or (2) is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or personal bias;16 the abuse 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.[17]
	GR No. 181809 2010-02-17	ROSE MARIE D. DOROMAL v. HERNAN G. BIRON DEL CASTILLO, J.
An act done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias constitutes grave abuse of discretion.[15] In the instant case, we find that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the exclusion of the subject returns. The ruling contravenes clear legal provisions as well as long standing jurisprudence on the admissibility of the certificate of votes and the appreciation of election returns. Lamentably, the refusal of the COMELEC to heed this Court's repeated pronouncements has again led to the disenfranchisement of voters in this case. The writ, therefore, lies to correct this grossly abusive exercise of discretion.
	GR No. 190156 2010-02-12	LEONOR DANGAN-CORRAL v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
Consequently, to allow the execution of such a grossly infirm RTC Decision in disregard of established jurisprudence and clear and straightforward rules is arbitrary and whimsical and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11]
	GR No. 188456 2009-09-10	H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
Petitioners have made much of the Court's ruling in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines [Infotech] v. Comelec,[58] arguing in relation thereto that the partnership of Smartmatic and TIM does not meet the Court's definition of a joint venture which requires "community of interest in the performance of the subject matter."
	GR NO. 167741 2007-07-12	REPUBLIC v. MAJ. GEN. CARLOS FLORES GARCIA CORONA, J.
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[10] Here, the Sandiganbayan's January 14, 2005 resolution was clearly contrary to Tolentino.
	GR NO. 152651 2006-08-07	ANDABAI T. ARIMAO v. SAADEA P. TAHER TINGA, J.
Neither is the petition for prohibition before the trial court violative of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Said doctrine precludes a court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[38] An exception to this rule is when the issue raised is a purely legal question, well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the court and not the administrative agency.[39] In the instant case, the legal question of whether a memorandum of the ARMM Governor, ordering the reinstatement of an employee declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal question which should be resolved by the courts. For the same reason that the issues to be resolved in this case are purely legal in nature, respondent need not abide by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[40] Besides, to allow the matter to remain with the Office of the ARMM Governor for resolution would be self-defeating and useless and cause unnecessary delay since it was the same office which gave the conflicting issuances on petitioner's reinstatement.
	GR NO. 161065 2005-04-15	EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners invoke our ruling in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,[4] Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[5] and Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections[6] that where the subject matter of a case is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest, then this fact alone gives them legal standing to institute the instant petition. Petitioners contend that the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan is not just a mere reorganization but a revamp or overhaul of the COA, with a "spillover effect" upon its audit performance. This will have an impact upon the rest of the government bodies subject to its audit supervision, thus, should be treated as a matter of transcendental importance. Consequently, petitioners' legal standing should be recognized and upheld.
	GR No. 157526 2004-04-28	EMILIANA TORAL KARE v. COMELEC PANGANIBAN, J.
For violating the law and the clear jurisprudence on this matter, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion.[31]

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC