Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; A petition for certiorari is allowed in Article VIII,

Section 1 of the Constitution and described in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as an
independent civil action.—A party aggrieved by the rulings of the Senate or House Electoral
Tribunal invokes the jurisdiction of this Court through the vehicle of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. An appeal is a continuation of the
proceedings in the tribunal from which the appeal is taken. A petition for certiorari is allowed in
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution and described in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as
an independent civil action. The viability of such a petition is premised on an allegation of
“grave abuse of discretion.” The term “grave abuse of discretion” has been generally held to
refer to such arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical exercise of judgment as is tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction. (David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, 803 SCRA 435, G.R. No. 221538 September
20, 2016)

Same; Same; Same; Grave Abuse of Discretion; There is grave abuse of discretion when a
constitutional organ such as the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) or the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), makes manifestly gross errors in its factual inferences such that critical pieces of
evidence, which have been nevertheless properly introduced by a party, or admitted, or which
were the subject of stipulation, are ignored or not accounted for.—There is grave abuse of
discretion when a constitutional organ such as the Senate Electoral Tribunal or the Commission
on Elections, makes manifestly gross errors in its factual inferences such that critical pieces of
evidence, which have been nevertheless properly introduced by a party, or admitted, or which
were the subject of stipulation, are ignored or not accounted for. A glaring misinterpretation of
the constitutional text or of statutory provisions, as well as a misreading or misapplication of
the current state of jurisprudence, is also considered grave abuse of discretion. The
arbitrariness consists in the disregard of the current state of our law. (David vs. Senate
Electoral Tribunal, 803 SCRA 435, G.R. No. 221538 September 20, 2016)

Same; Same; Same; Writs of certiorari have been issued: (a) where the tribunal’s approach to
an issue is premised on wrong considerations and its conclusions founded on a gross
misreading, if not misrepresentation, of the evidence; (b) where a tribunal’s assessment of a
case is “far from reasonable[,] [and] based solely on very personal and subjective assessment
standards when the law is replete with standards that can be used”; “(c) where the tribunal’s
action on the appreciation and evaluation of evidence oversteps the limits of its discretion to
the point of being grossly unreasonable”; and (d) where the tribunal invokes erroneous or
irrelevant considerations in resolving an issue.—Writs of certiorari have, therefore, been issued:
(a) where the tribunal’s approach to an issue is premised on wrong considerations and its
conclusions founded on a gross misreading, if not misrepresentation, of the evidence; (b) where
a tribunal’s assessment of a case is “far from reasonable[,] [and] based solely on very personal
and subjective assessment standards when the law is replete with standards that can be used”;
“(c) where the tribunal’s action on the appreciation and evaluation of evidence oversteps the
limits of its discretion to the point of being grossly unreasonable”; and (d) where the tribunal
invokes erroneous or irrelevant considerations in resolving an issue. (David vs. Senate Electoral
Tribunal, 803 SCRA 435, G.R. No. 221538 September 20, 2016)