Title: Judicial processes and remedies

Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. Use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision maker's action with grave abuse of discretion.

The present petition is for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation with Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Under these Rules, our review is limited to the jurisdictional issue of whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.1Varias anchored his petition on alleged instances of COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is a concept that defies exact definition, but generally refers to "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction"; the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of 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 and hostility.2 Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave.3 Use of wrong or irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is sufficient to taint a decision maker's action with grave abuse of discretion. 4

RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 1. Quintos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 149800, November 21, 2002, 392 SCRA 489, 504. Suliguin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166046, March 23, 2006, 485 SCRA 219, 233.

Pecson v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182865, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 634, 646, citing Almeida v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159124, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 681, 695 where we ruled that in granting or denying injunctive relief, a court abuses its discretion when it lacks jurisdiction, fails to consider and make a record of the factors relevant to its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, considers clearly irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to one factor, relies on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplies its factual or legal conclusions.
4

Closely related with this limitation is the condition under Section 5, Rule 64 that findings of fact of the Commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable. Substantial evidence is that degree of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.5 The Supreme Court do not ordinarily review in a certiorari case the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Grounds involving the issue of appreciation and calibration of evidence cannot result in any jurisdictional error. In the absence of any allegation of jurisdictional error, no basis exists for us to proceed with a certiorari review. Under these rules, we do not ordinarily review in a certiorari case the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Any COMELEC misstep in this regard generally involves an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction.6 In exceptional cases, however, when COMELEC action on the appreciation and evaluation of evidence shows grave abuse of discretion, the Court is more than obliged, as it is then its constitutional duty, to intervene; when grave abuse of discretion is present, resulting errors arising from the grave abuse mutate from error of judgment to one of jurisdiction.7 The above limitations preclude us from ruling on the third and fourth grounds Varias cited in his petition. These cited grounds involve the issue of appreciation and calibration of evidence, which in proper context cannot result in any jurisdictional error, if only because Varias did not allege any grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC in arriving at its conclusions. The COMELEC concluded that: (1) entries in some sets of two or more different ballots were written by one person; (2) entries in a particular ballot were written by two persons; and (3) a ballot had been marked. Varias merely argued that these COMELEC findings and/or conclusions were wrong, and from there proceeded to argue his positions. In the absence of any allegation of jurisdictional error, no basis exists for us to proceed with a certiorari review.8

RULES OF COURT, Rule 134, Section 5. See Pagaduan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 172278, March 29, 2007, 519 SCRA 512. See De Guzman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 159713, March 31, 2004, 426 SCRA 698, 708. Varias vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189078, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 386, 407.