G.R. NO. 169885 - ARTEMIO PEDRAGOZA, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FRANCISCO SUMULONG, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we hold that the failure of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason to state the reasons for their inhibition from the 30 September 2005 Resolution does not affect the validity of that ruling. The COMELEC did not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion On petitioner's alternative contention that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the findings of the First Division, we find no merit to this claim. In his petition, petitioner contented himself with making the sweeping charge that the COMELEC En Banc's ruling is contrary to "law, x x x evidence and existing jurisprudence" without substantiating his claim. Perhaps realizing this, petitioner, in his Reply to respondent's Comment, reproduced the grounds he raised in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc . This does not suffice to sustain his claim of grave abuse of discretion. The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment but "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility." [12] We have gone over the grounds petitioner raised in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc and we find no such grave error tainting the Resolution of 30 September 2005. WHEREFORE , we DISMISS the petition. SO ORDERED.