Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MEMBERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 156542 2007-06-26	CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT v. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the first assigned error, it is true that as a rule while certiorari as a remedy may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, especially for a lost appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious.[18] It has been held that where the rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are justified in exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.[19] The Court has given due course to petitions for certiorari although appeal is the proper remedy where the equities of the case warranted such action, mindful that dismissals based on technicalities are looked upon with disfavor.[20]
	GR NO. 158585 2005-12-13	AMON TRADING CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is likewise nothing meaty about the assertion of private respondent that inasmuch as the delivery receipts as well as the purchase order were for the account of Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty, then petitioners should have been placed on guard that it was private respondent which is the principal of Sanchez. In China Banking Corp. v. Members of the Board of Trustees, Home Development Mutual Fund[11] and the later case of Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De los Angeles v. Home Development Mutual Fund,[12] the term "and/or" was held to mean that effect shall be given to both the conjunctive "and" and the disjunctive "or"; or that one word or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the intended purpose. It was accordingly ordinarily held that in using the term "and/or" the word "and" and the word "or" are to be used interchangeably.
	GR NO. 141523 2005-06-08	DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS TINGA, J.
As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), however, in view of the nullity of the assailed Resolution, the Court may entertain the petition notwithstanding the failure of petitioner to appeal the Resolution to the Court of Appeals. If a decision is rendered without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, the same may be attacked anytime.[22] While certiorari as a remedy may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, especially for a lost appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious.[23] The Court has given due course to petitions for certiorari although appeal is the proper remedy where the equities of the case warranted such action, mindful that dismissals based on technicalities are looked upon with disfavor.[24]
	GR No. 131082 2000-06-19	ROMULO v. HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND DAVIDE JR., C.J.
The issue of the validity of the 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742, specifically Section I, Rule VII on Waiver and Suspension, has been squarely resolved in the relatively recent case of China Banking Corp. v. The Members of the Board of Trustees of the HDMF.[16] We held in that case that Section 1 of Rule VII of the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742, and HDMF Circular No. 124~B prescribing the Revised Guidelines and Procedure for Filing Application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund Coverage under P.D. No. 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742, are null and void insofar as they require that an employer should have both a provident/ retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the benefits offered by the Fund in order to qualify for waiver or suspension of the Fund coverage. In arriving at said conclusion, we ruled:The controversy lies in the legal signification of the words "and/or."