Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 199595 2014-04-02	PHILIPPINE WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION v. TEODORO R. YANGCO 2ND REYES, J.
Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man hours used in handling of each case. Docket fees, on the other hand, vest the trial court jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of action.[46]
	GR NO. 171532 2007-08-07	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK v. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Manchester, we ruled that the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amount sought in the amended pleading. The strict set of guidelines provided in Manchester was prompted by the fraudulent intent of the counsel in said case to avoid payment of the required docket fee.[40]
	GR NOS. 142332-43 2005-01-31	YOLANDA BRUGADA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION CARPIO, J.
Petitioners have no right to back wages because they were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended. Petitioners admitted participating in the teachers' strike which disrupted the education of public school students. For this offense, the CSC reduced Secretary Cariño's dismissal orders to six months suspension without pay. The Court has already put to rest the issue of the award of back wages to public school teachers whom the CSC reinstated in the service after commuting Secretary Cariño's dismissal orders to six months suspension without pay.[9] In Alipat v. Court of Appeals,[10] the Court denied the teachers' claim for back wages stating thus:This Court has also resolved the issue of whether back wages may be awarded to the teachers who were ordered reinstated to the service after the dismissal orders of Secretary Cariño were commuted by the Civil Service Commission to six (6) months' suspension. The issue was resolved in the negative in Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals on the ground that the teachers were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended. The Bangalisan case also ruled that the immediate implementation of the dismissal orders, being clearly sanctioned by law, was not unjustified. The Court held that as regards the payment of back salaries during the period of suspension of a member of the civil service who is subsequently ordered reinstated, the payment of back wages may be decreed if "he is found innocent of the charges which caused the suspension and when the suspension is unjustified."
	GR No. 156160 2004-12-09	JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As this Court had already resolved said issue of jurisdiction in the above-cited cases, it is a salutary and necessary judicial practice to apply the rulings therein to the subject petition. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.[17] Undaunted, petitioner now harps on the validity of Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6770 claiming it to be unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals, it must be recalled, relied quite heavily on Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6770 in relation to Fabian v. Desierto[18] in ruling that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed thereat.