Daraga case and maritime case.

[I]t is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one that was
constitutionally created like herein respondent COA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also
of their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. It is, in fact, an oft-repeated rule that findings of
administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with
unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion.

The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
interrupts the period; hence, should the motion be denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining
period, which shall not be less than five days in any event, reckoned from the notice of denial.

Lokin jr. Vs comelec was cited 3 times in the book.

The Lokin jr. Vs comelec in page 175 and 277(quo warranto) pertains to the june 22, 2010 decision, whereas the one on page 178 to 179, pertains to a june 26, 2012
decision;

Sa syllabus, gimix up (or namix up?) ni maam ang case title at GR no. (title maritime pero gr no. Is daraga) ng Maritime industry at daraga press so im gonna cite them
both as well hahay. Sa book they were the citation for one concept so that part is merged here).

so instead of four there are 6 cases here.

Case title What was asked by Atty. What was cited in the Book? Relevant Rulings
Pague.

Lokin jr. Vs Already asked. Lokin jr. Vs comelec pg 175 (june Lokin jr. Vs comelec pg 175 (june 22, 2010 decision):
(Atty’s syllabus only asked for 621 scra 385 the june 22,
2010 decision. For due diligence I will include all here

comelec pg 175 No longer asked 22, 2010 decision):

(june 22, 2010 by atty.
decision):
The COMELEC posits that once the proclamation of the winning party-list organization
has been done and its nominee has assumed office, any question relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the candidates to the House of Representatives
Lokin has correctly brought this falls under the jurisdiction of the HRET pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
special civil action for certiorari Constitution. Thus, Lokin should raise the question he poses herein either in an election
Lokin v. comelec

against the COMELEC to seek the protest or in a special civil action for quo warranto in the HRET, not in a special civil
review of the September 14, 2007 action for certiorari in this Court.
resolution of the COMELEC in
but with distinguishing label)

accordance with Section 7 of We do not agree.

Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution, notwithstanding the
oath and assumption of office by
Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional
mandate is now implemented by
Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides for the
review of the judgments, final
orders or resolutions of the
COMELEC and the Commission on
An election protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. It is strictly a
contest between the defeated and the winning candidates, based on the grounds of
electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine who between them has actually
obtained the majority of the legal votes cast and is entitled to hold the office. It can
only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been
voted for in the preceding elections.
A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the State, or
of ineligibility of the winning candidate. The objective of the action is to unseat the
 Audit. As Rule 64 states, the mode
of review is by a petition for
certiorari in accordance with Rule
65 to be filed in the Supreme
Court within a limited period of 30
days. Undoubtedly, the Court has
original and exclusive jurisdiction
over Lokin’s petitions for certiorari
and for mandamus against the
COMELEC.
Lokin jr. Vs comelec pg 178 to Lokin jr. Vs comelec pg 178 (june 26, 2012 decision):
179 (june 26, 2012 decision):
The court made clear that while rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari as the general rule in rule 65, they cannot
be equated as they provide for different reglementary periods. Rule 65 provides for a period of 65 days from notice of
judgement to be sought to be assailed in the supreme court, while section 3 of rule 64 expressly provides for only 30 days.
EN BANC What is the Decisions and resolutions of the
1 item
ruling? respondent COA may be reviewed
G. R. No. and nullified only on the ground of
185812, See underlined grave abuse of discretion
January 13, portion last amounting to lack or excess of
2015 column. jurisdiction.39 Grave abuse of
discretion exists when there is an
evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty
MARITIME
enjoined by law or to act in
INDUSTRY
contemplation of law as when the
AUTHORITY, P
judgment rendered is not based
etitioner, v. CO
on law and evidence but on
MMISSION ON
caprice, whim, and despotism.
AUDIT, Respon
dents.
LEONEN, J.:
ineligible person from the office, but not to install the petitioner in his place. Any voter
may initiate the action, which is, strictly speaking, not a contest where the parties strive
for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent may be
unseated.
The controversy involving Lokin is neither an election protest nor an action for quo
warranto, for it concerns a very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated
as the second nominee of CIBAC. Although an election protest may properly be
available to one party-list organization seeking to unseat another party-list organization
to determine which between the defeated and the winning party-list organizations
actually obtained the majority of the legal votes, Lokin’s case is not one in which a
nominee of a particular party-list organization thereby wants to unseat another
nominee of the same party-list organization. Neither does an action for quo
warranto lie, considering that the case does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty
of Cruz-Gonzales to the Republic of the Philippines, or some other cause of
disqualification for her. (continue reading riano citation)
Commission on Audit did not
commit grave abuse of discretion
The aggrieved party can assail the decision of the Commission on Audit through a
petition for certiorari under Rule 64 before this court. A petition under Rule 64 may
prosper only after a finding that the administrative agency committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Not all errors of the Commission
on Audit is reviewable by this court. Thus, A Rule 65 petition is a unique and special
rule because it commands limited review of the question raised. As an extraordinary
remedy, its purpose is simply to keep the public respondent within the bounds of its
jurisdiction or to relieve the petitioner from the public respondent’s arbitrary acts. In
this review, the Court is confined solely to questions of jurisdiction whenever a tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function acts without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. . . .
The limitation of the Court’s power of review over COA rulings merely complements its
nature as an independent constitutional body that is tasked to safeguard the proper
use of the government and, ultimately, the people’s property by vesting it with power
to (i) determine whether the government entities comply with the law and the rules in
disbursing public funds; and (ii) disallow legal disbursements of these
funds.48 (Emphasis in the original)
 Reviewing the rationale for this standard of judicial
review:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

[t]his court has consistently held that findings of administrative agencies are
generally respected, unless found to have been tainted with unfairness that amounted
to grave abuse of discretion:

It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative

authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created not only on the basis of
the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws
that they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded
not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with
unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only
when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a
petition questioning its rulings. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to
act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and
evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.49

We find that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

may be attributed to the Commission on Audit in this case.

G. R. No. Not mentioned The factual findings of the respondent COA must be accorded great
201042, June by atty. respect and finality.
16, 2015
In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, the factual findings of the
respondent COA, which are undoubtedly supported by the evidence on record,
DARAGA must be accorded great respect and finality. The respondent COA, as the duly
PRESS, authorized agency to adjudicate money claims against government agencies and
INC., Petitioner instrumentalities, pursuant to Section 2649 of Presidential Decree No. 1445,50 has
, v. COMMISSI acquired special knowledge and expertise in handling matters falling under its
ON ON AUDIT specialized jurisdiction.
AND
DEPARTMENT
OF
EDUCATION-
AUTONOMOUS
REGION IN
MUSLIM
MINDANAO, Re
spondent.

DEL
CASTILLO, J.:
gR. No. 213525, What is the the petition is filed within 30 Fresh Period Rule under Neypes
January 27, 2015 ruling? See days from notice of the judgment did not apply to the petition for certiorari
underlined or final order or resolution under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court
sought to be reviewed. The filing
of a motion for new trial or
FORTUNE LIFE The petitioner posits that the fresh period rule applies because its Rule 64 petition is akin to a petition
reconsideration, if allowed under
INSURANCE for review brought under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court; hence, conformably with the fresh period
the procedural rules of the
COMPANY, rule, the period to file a Rule 64 petition should also be reckoned from the receipt of the order denying
Commission concerned,
INC., Petitioner, the motion for reconsideration or the motion for new trial.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
interrupts the period; hence,
should the motion be denied, the
aggrieved party may file the The petitioner’s position cannot be sustained.
v. petition within the remaining
period, which shall not be less There is no parity between the petition for review under Rule 42 and the petition for certiorari under
than five days in any event, Rule 64.
reckoned from the notice of
COMMISSION ON As to the nature of the procedures, Rule 42 governs an appeal from the judgment or final order rendered
denial.
AUDIT (COA) by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Such appeal is on a question of
PROPER; COA fact, or of law, or of mixed question of fact and law, and is given due course only upon a prima
REGIONAL facie showing that the Regional Trial Court committed an error of fact or law warranting the reversal or
OFFICE NO. VI- modification of the challenged judgment or final order.17 In contrast, the petition for certiorari under
WESTERN Rule 64 is similar to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and assails a judgment or final order of
VISAYAS; AUDIT the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), or the Commission on Audit (COA). The petition is not
GROUP LGS-B, designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.18 Questions of fact cannot be
PROVINCE OF raised except to determine whether the COMELEC or the COA were guilty of grave abuse of discretion
ANTIQUE; AND amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT OF The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are different. In the former, the aggrieved party
ANTIQUE, Respon is allowed 15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the assailed decision or final order, or
dents. from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration.19 In the latter, the petition is
filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The
filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if allowed under the procedural rules of the
BERSAMIN, J Commission concerned, interrupts the period; hence, should the motion be denied, the aggrieved party
may file the petition within the remaining period, which shall not be less than five days in any event,
reckoned from the notice of denial.

The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on January 14, 2013, which was 31 days after
receiving the assailed decision of the COA on December 14, 2012.21 Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64,
it had only five days from receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to file the petition.
Considering that it received the notice of the denial on July 14, 2014, it had only until July 19, 2014 to
file the petition. However, it filed the petition on August 13, 2014, which was 25 days too late.

We ruled in Pates v. Commission on Elections22 that the belated filing of the petition for certiorari under
Rule 64 on the belief that the fresh period rule should apply was fatal to the recourse. As such, the
petitioner herein should suffer the same fate for having wrongly assumed that the fresh period
rule under Neypes23 applied. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice
that is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed
procedure.24Absent this reason for liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to prosper.
GR. No. What is the ruling? See The petition for Petitioner states that it filed this petition under Rule XI, Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
185544 underlined certiorari refereed to in Procedure of the Commission on Audit.50 The rule states:
rule 64 shall be filed
January 13, 2015 within 30 days from Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court has a reglementary period
notice of the of 60 days from receipt of denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Constitution, however,
judgment, final order specifies that the reglementary period for assailing the decisions, orders, or rulings of the
or resolution of the constitutional commissions is thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, order, or ruling. For
THE LAW FIRM OF
COMELEC and COA this reason, a separate rule was enacted in the Rules of Court.
LAGUESMA
MAGSALIN sought to be reviewed.
Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides the guidelines for filing a petition for certiorari
CONSULTA AND under this rule. Section 2 of the rule specifies that "[a] judgment or final order or resolution of
GASTARDO, Petiti the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved
oner, “ SEC. 3. Time to file party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided."
vs. petition. — The
THE COMMISSION petition shall be filed The phrase, "except as hereinafter provided," specifies that any petition for certiorari filed under
ON AUDIT and/or within thirty (30) days this rule follows the same requisites as those of Rule 65 except for certain provisions found only
REYNALDO A. from notice of the in Rule 64. One of these provisions concerns the time given to file the petition.
VILLAR and judgment or final order
JUANITO G. Section 3 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:
or resolution sought to
ESPINO, JR. in be reviewed. The filing SEC. 3. Time to file petition. — The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of
their capacities as of a motion for new the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new
Chairman and trial or reconsideration trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the
Commissioner, of said judgment or procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the
respectively, Res final order or motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which
pondents. resolution, if allowed shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.(Emphasis
under the procedural supplied)
LEONEN, J.
rules of the
Commission
concerned, shall
interrupt the period Under this rule, a party may file a petition for review on certiorari within 30 days from notice of
herein fixed. If the the judgment being assailed. The reglementary period includes the time taken to file the motion
motion is denied, the for reconsideration and is only interrupted once the motion is filed. If the motion is denied, the
aggrieved party may party may filethe petition only within the period remaining from the notice of judgment.
file the petition within
The difference between Rule 64 and Rule 65 has already been exhaustively discussed by this
the remaining period,
court in Pates v. Commission on Elections:52
but which shall not be
less than five (5) days
in any event, reckoned
from notice of Rule 64, however, cannot simply be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the
denial.(Emphasis latter rule. They exist as separate rules for substantive reasons as discussed below.
supplied) Procedurally, the most patent difference between the two – i.e., the exception that
Section 2, Rule 64 refers to – is Section 3 which provides for a special period for the
filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc. The
period is 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule
a party may file a
65 provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for
petition for review on
reconsideration deductible from the originally granted 30 days (instead of the fresh
certiorari within 30
period of 60 days that Rule 65 provides).53 (Emphasis supplied)
days from notice of the
judgment being
assailed. The
reglementary period
includes the time
taken to file the motion This petition could have been dismissed outright for being filed out of time. This court, however,
for reconsideration recognizes that there are certain exceptions that allow a relaxation of the procedural rules. In
and is only interrupted Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems:58
once the motion is
filed.
The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for
these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it
If the motion is denied, is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant
the party may file the to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory
petition only within the character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and
period remaining from the parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard.
the notice of
judgment.”

In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court restated the reasons which may provide justification
for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty,
honor or property[,] (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of
the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.59 (Emphasis
supplied)

Considering that the issues in thiscase involve the right of petitioner to receive due
compensation on the one hand and respondents’ duty to prevent the unauthorized
disbursement of public funds on the other, a relaxation of the technical rules is in
order.