Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SALVADOR SILERIO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 201284 2014-11-19	LUVIMIN CEBU MINING CORP. v. CEBU PORT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
The term infrastructure projects means "construction, improvement and rehabilitation of roads, and bridges, railways, airports, seaports, communication facilities, irrigation, flood control and drainage, water supply and sewerage systems, shore protection, power facilities, national buildings, school buildings, hospital buildings, and other related construction projects that form part of the government capital investment."[23]
	GR No. 167057 2012-04-11	NERWIN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, judges dealing with applications for the injunctive relief ought to be wary of improvidently or unwarrantedly issuing TROs or writs of injunction that tend to dispose of the merits without or before trial. Granting an application for the relief in disregard of that tendency is judicially impermissible,[22] for it is never the function of a TRO or preliminary injunction to determine the merits of a case,[23] or to decide controverted facts.[24] It is but a preventive remedy whose only mission is to prevent threatened wrong,[25] further injury,[26] and irreparable harm[27] or injustice[28] until the rights of the parties can be settled. Judges should thus look at such relief only as a means to protect the ability of their courts to render a meaningful decision.[29] Foremost in their minds should be to guard against a change of circumstances that will hamper or prevent the granting of proper reliefs after a trial on the merits.[30] It is well worth remembering that the writ of preliminary injunction should issue only to prevent the threatened continuous and irremediable injury to the applicant before the claim can be justly and thoroughly studied and adjudicated.[31]
	AM No. RTJ-08-2133 2008-08-06	DATU OMAR S. SINSUAT v. JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court finds that, indeed, respondent is liable for gross misconduct. As the CA explained in its above-stated Decision in the petition for certiorari, respondent failed to heed the mandatory ban imposed by P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No. 8975 against a government infrastructure project,[29] which the rural electrification project certainly was. He thereby likewise obstinately disregarded this Court's various circulars[30] enjoining courts from issuing TROs and injunctions against government infrastructure projects in line with the proscription under R.A. No. 8975. Apropos are Gov. Garcia v. Hon. Burgos[31] and National Housing Authority v. Hon. Allarde[32] wherein this Court stressed that P.D. No. 1818 expressly deprives courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs against the implementation or execution of a government infrastructure project.
	GR Nos. 135688-89 2007-10-18	ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO v. UEM-MARA PHILIPPINES CORPORATION CORONA, J.
Petitioner argues that the collection of toll fees is not an infrastructure project of the government. He cites the definition of "infrastructure projects" we used in Republic v. Silerio:[26]
	GR No. 159139 2004-01-13	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC PANGANIBAN, J.
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). However, due to the failure of the machines to read correctly some automated ballots in one town, the poll body later ordered their manual count for the entire Province of Sulu.[8] In the May 2001 elections, the counting and canvassing of votes for both national and local positions were also done manually, as no additional ACMs had been acquired for that electoral exercise allegedly because of time constraints.