This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 82322 for entertaining the petition filed by respondent Kingsville on the ground that the latter is re-litigating the same issues raised in CA G.R. No. 71055. CA G.R. No. 71055 was dismissed because Kingsville availed of a wrong remedy via Rule 65 instead of Rule 43, and because of a defective verification. Petitioners, citing Bernarte v. Court of Appeals,[40] contend that while this dismissal is grounded on procedural flaws, the same is an adjudication on the merits constituting res judicata. | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, jurisdiction is conferred by no other source than law. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it continues until the case is finally terminated.[30] The disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC over government officials and employees within its coverage is well-defined in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807,[31] otherwise known as The Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. Section 37[32] thereof materially provides that the CSC shall have jurisdiction over appeals in administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of the penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary; demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It has already been established in a plethora of cases that once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of litigation.[16] Neither can it be ousted by subsequent events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. Even subsequent legislation vesting jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal will not affect such jurisdiction.[17] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition in G.R. No. 131746 was definitely a disposition of the merits of the case and constituted a bar to a relitigation of the issues raised there under the doctrine of res judicata. When we dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the ruling being questioned. Thus, our ruling has already become final. In Bernarte v. Court of Appeals,[30] we declared: The petition in G.R. No. 100663 was dismissed for noncompliance with Circular No. 1-88. Contrary to petitioners' contention, however, such a dismissal through a minute resolution was one on the merits of the petition. Thus, where a first petition for certiorari was dismissed for noncompliance with paragraph 4 of Circular No. 1-88 and another petition, complying with said circular and basically reiterating the same issues raised in the first petition was filed a year later, the Court dismissed the second petition and severely censured counsel for petitioner for refiling the same petition. In a Resolution, the Court stated as follows: "...(I)t is equally axiomatic that minute resolutions of this Court, denying due course to petitions, or dismissing cases summarily - for failure to comply with the formal or substantial requirements laid down therefor by the law - are actually dispositions on the merits, constituting res judicata." Hence, even though the Court did not explicitly resolve G.R. No. 100663 on the merits, its dismissal on the ground of noncompliance with Circular No. I-88 had the effect of resolving the issues raised therein. While it may be argued that said circular is merely a remedial measure which should not unduly affect the substantive aspects of a case, its force and effect must be at all times be upheld for, after all, it was designed for the orderly administration of justice.[31] It is also important to note that in our rules for filing of petitions under Rule 45, "review is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor."[32] | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Kunting was charged with four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention in Criminal Case Nos. 3608-1164, 3537-1129, 3674-1187, and 3611-1165. In accordance with the last sentence of Section 4 above, the writ cannot be issued and Kunting cannot be discharged since he has been charged with a criminal offense. Bernarte v. Court of Appeals[7] holds that "once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In G.R. No. 74943, we denied certiorari through a minute resolution. Minute resolutions of this Court denying due course to petitions or dismissing cases summarily, for failure to comply with the formal or substantial requirements laid down therefor by law, are dispositions on the merits.[11] | |||||