This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Citing several cases,[8] petitioner Go enumerates the following elements of Section 3(g) of RA 3019:(1) that the accused is a public officer; | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, even if we consider for the sake of argument that the IAOP should not have been issued if PICOP had existing forestry accounts, the issuance of the IAOP cannot be considered proof that PICOP has paid the same. Firstly, the best evidence of payment is the receipt thereof. PICOP has not presented any evidence that such receipts had been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court.[100] Secondly, it is a well known and settled rule in our jurisdiction that the Republic, or its government, is usually not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents.[101] If PICOP had been issued an IAOP in violation of the law allegedly because it may not be issued if PICOP had existing forestry accounts, the government cannot be estopped from collecting such amounts and providing the necessary sanctions therefor, including the withholding of the IFMA until such amounts are paid. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioner, through its General Manager, executed a Special Power of Attorney appointing Atty. Ramiro R. Madarang and other lawyers of the OGCC, and Atty. Francisquiel O. Mancile and other lawyers of its Legal Services Department as its lawful attorneys at all stages of the proceedings in the present case.[10] Atty. Francisquiel Mancile appeared before the trial court as counsel of the petitioner. Atty. Mancile appeared for the petitioner during the trial except during the hearing of October 21, 1997[11] when Atty. Ramiro R. Madarang of the OGCC appeared for the petitioner with Atty. Mancile. | |||||