This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Any public officer or employee who knowingly approves or assists in securing a decision allowing reconstitution in favor of any person not entitled thereto shall be subject to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment of not less than five years but not exceeding ten years or payment of a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos but not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.[43] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| When an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within the jurisdiction of said administrative agency or body. Split jurisdiction is not favored.[35] Therefore, the Complaint for Specific Performance, Annulment of Mortgage, and Damages filed by petitioner against respondent, though involving title to, possession of, or interest in real estate, was well within the jurisdiction of the HLURB for it involves a claim against the subdivision developer, Queen's Row Subdivision, Inc., as well as respondent. | |||||
|
2004-07-08 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The principle enunciated in Tejada v. Homestead Property Corporation[66] is applicable to the case at bar: The Court agrees with the observation of the [that] when an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within the jurisdiction of said administrative agency or body. Split jurisdiction is not favored.[67] Second. The interpretation of the provisions of the SMA favors vesting untrammeled appellate jurisdiction on the CTA. | |||||