This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While "[w]ell-entrenched is the rule that courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency,"[34] it is not entirely correct to say that an action by an administrative agency, such as in the case at bar, cannot be questioned in an injunction suit. It has been held that "[c]ourts cannot enjoin an agency from performing an act within its prerogative, except when in the exercise of its authority it gravely abused or exceeded its jurisdiction."[35] Indeed, administrative decisions on matters within the executive jurisdiction can be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law, and in such cases, injunction may be granted.[36] | |||||
|
2007-12-18 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| Petitioners' failure to ask the CIR for a reconsideration of the assailed revenue regulations and RMCs is another reason why the instant case should be dismissed. It is settled that the premature invocation of the court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must first be exhausted before the court's power of judicial review can be sought.[35] The party with an administrative remedy must not only initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. [36] | |||||
|
2004-11-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right.[52] It must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[53] Moreover, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation.[54] | |||||
|
2004-07-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, it is clear that for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[31] At the time of its application for an injunctive writ, respondents' right to operate and manage the waste management center, to the exclusion of or without any participation by petitioner ERTI, cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable. The MOA executed between respondents and petitioner ERTI has not yet been judicially declared as rescinded when the complaint was lodged in court.[32] Hence, a cloud of doubt exists over respondent German Consortium's exclusive right relating to the waste management center. | |||||