No Grave Abuse of Discretion Cases:

1.) Office of the Ombudsman vs Heirs of Margarita Vda De Ventura

The action of the Ombudsman in provisionally dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to its re-
opening upon final resolution of its DARAB Case, is not whimsical or arbitrary because such action finds
support in the Courts rulings. It is well-settled that a trial court, or in this case a quasi-judicial tribunal,
has the inherent power to control the disposition of cases by holding in abeyance the proceedings
before it in the proceedings before it in the exercise of its sound discretion to await the outcome of
another case pending in another court or body, especially where the parties and the issues are the
same. This is to avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments,
confusion between litigants and courts, and ensuring economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants.

2.) Cayetano vs Monsod

The Commission on Appointments did not commit grave abuse of discretion in confirming Monsod’s
appointment because COA’s power to give consent to the nomination of the COMELEC chairman by the
President is mandated by the Constitution under Article IX, Section 1. The power of appointment is
essentially within the discretion to whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee
should possess the qualification required by law. Therefore, there is no occasion for the Supreme Court
to exercise its corrective power since COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

3.) Gloria Lucas vs Judge Amelia A. Fabros

Respondent judge was not guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it granted the plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration after the case had been dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff and her counsel to
appear at the Preliminary Conference. As a rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading
under Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. This rule, however, applies only where the
judgment sought to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. Here, the order of dismissal issued
by respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear during the preliminary conference is obviously
not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case. Hence, a motion for the reconsideration of such
order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under Section 19 (c) of the present Rule on Summary
Procedure.

4.) Marcos vs Manglapus

The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of
former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. The
power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is
founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people.

5.) Ledesma vs Hon. Climaco

Respondent Judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion when he appointed an election registrar as
counsel de officio for two defendants because only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their
office are Judges, or other officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor
General.

6.)