| | | 1 VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 27 eee eee eee Tanadé vs; Tuvera _ “Error of judgment: Both differ in that grave abuse of discre- tion means capricious.and arbitrary exercise of. judgment while error of judgment means the mistake actually committed in adjudication. ~—Ferrer v. Fortun, SP-06839, January 26, 1978.” 1 feel that the most anyone should'find in'the COMELEC decision is perhaps some kind of error’but not grave abuse of discretion, aaa 1, therefore, vote to dismiss the petition for lack of merit. Decision set aside. : Notes.—Issue of a candidate's disqualification best resolved in'the election protest after a proclamation had been made and an election protest had been lodged. (Gomez vs. Commission on Elections, 120 SCRA 621.) * There is no need for election protest. or quo warranto where basis is turncoatism if the board of canvassers proclaimed the turncoat candidate as elected despite a COMELEC hold order: (Digman vs, Commission on Elections, 120 SCRA 650.) Laws governing election, protests should be liberally con- strued. (Miro vs. Commission on Elections, 120 SCRA 466.) —=—0e-— No. L-63915. ‘ April 24, 1985.* LORENZO M. TANADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], peti- tioners, vs. HON, JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Ex- ecutive Assistant to the President, HON, JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the Presi- dent, MELQUIADES P. DE.LA CRUZ, in his capacity, as Director, Malacafiang Records Office, and FLORENDO. S: PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents. “+ EN BANC. PCSTLIBRARY URDANETA CIT