Grave abuse of discretion

"Grave Abuse of Discretion.

The well-settled rule is that this Court will not interfere with a COMELEC decision unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion.4 Correctly understood, grave abuse of discretion is such "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or [an] exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or an exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act in a manner not at all in contemplation of law."5

Velasco imputes grave abuse of discretion on the COMELEC for canceling his COC on the sole ground that he committed false representation when he claimed that he is a registered voter of Precinct No. 103-A. This imputation directly poses to us the question: was the COMELEC ruling capriciously, whimsically, and arbitrarily made?

In answering this question, we recognize at the outset that together with the cancellation of the COC that is directly before us, we have to consider the effect and impact of the inclusion/exclusion proceedings that Velasco brought before the MTC which, on appeal to the RTC, ultimately led to the denial of his listing as a voter in Sasmuan. While this inclusion/exclusion case is not before us, it was the ruling in this proceeding that the COMELEC cited as ground for the cancellation of Velasco's COC after Velasco claimed that he is a registered voter of Precinct No. 103-A of Sasmuan, Pampanga."

G. R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008

NARDO M. VELASCO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MOZART P. PANLAQUI, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_180051_2008.html