Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN RE APPOINTMENTS DATED MARCH 30

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211833 2015-04-07	FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA v. JUDICIAL REYES, J.
Three. The petition for declaratory relief is improper. "An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties thereunder."[16] "[T]he purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc., for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach."[17]
	GR No. 191560 2011-03-29	LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. ALEJANDRO S. URRO BRION, J.
The respondents assert that their appointments cannot be considered as midnight appointments under the Dominador R. Aytona v. Andres V. Castillo, et al.[20] ruling, as restated in In Re: Appointments dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela, et al.[21] and Arturo M. de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, et al.,[22] since the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that their appointments were made only "for the purpose of influencing the Presidential elections," or for "partisan reasons."[23]
	GR No. 191002 2010-03-17	ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC BERSAMIN, J.
A precedent frequently cited is In Re Appointments Dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, respectively (Valenzuela),[7] by which the Court held that Section 15, Article VII prohibited the exercise by the President of the power to appoint to judicial positions during the period therein fixed.
	GR No. 191002 2010-03-17	ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC BERSAMIN, J.
In G.R. No. 191057, a special civil action for mandamus,[4] the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) wants the JBC to submit its list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, because the incumbent President is not covered by the prohibition that applies only to appointments in the Executive Department.