Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 191787 2015-06-22	MACARIO CATIPON v. JEROME JAPSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
The CA is further justified in refusing to take cognizance of the petition for review, as "[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence."[29] When petitioner's recourse lies in an appeal to the Commission Proper in accordance with the procedure prescribed in MC 19, the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge petitioner before it.
	GR NO. 155099 2005-08-31	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. JUDGE MANUEL D. VICTORIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
SBC further averred that the transactions and issues in Civil Case No. 17563 and in the case before the court were interrelated, and that the proceedings should be suspended to await the outcome of Civil Case No. 99-1581. The defendant cited the rulings of the Court in Quiambao v. Osorio,[24] Vidad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Branch 42[25] and City of Pasig v. Commission on Elections,[26] that prejudicial questions may be appreciated even if no criminal case is involved.