This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-23 |
|||||
| It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.[11] In the case at bar, after examining the original complaint, we find that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the case was filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent's cause of action is for damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance[12] that is specifically designated to try a libel case.[13] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, nary a hint in the EPIRA intimates that the powers of ERC's predecessors not mentioned therein are revoked or repealed. Be it noted that implied repeals are not favored in our jurisdiction.[50] The legislature is presumed to know the existing laws; if it intended a repeal of the earlier law, it should have so expressed that intention in the subsequent statute.[51] | |||||