Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NINA M. QUISMUNDO v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 161910 2008-06-17	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MA. REGINA I. SAMSON YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
However, we find no error on the part of petitioner DAR when it entertained the appeal of farmers-petitioners after finding the same meritorious, consistent with the declared policies of RA 6657 in giving the welfare of the landless farmers and farm workers the highest consideration. In several instances, even the Court entertained and allowed lapsed appeals in the higher interest of justice.[22] Moreover, proceedings before the DAR are summary and pursuant to Section 50 of RA 6657, the department is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence, to the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues will be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and inexpensive action or proceeding.[23]
	GR NO. 149621 2006-05-05	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO R. TANTOCO v. CA AZCUNA, J.
It is also worth noting at this juncture that the resolution of this case by the Department of Agrarian Reform is to the best advantage of petitioners since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being the administrative agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter and vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform controversies. Further, the proceedings therein are summary and the department is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence, to the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues will be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and inexpensive action or proceeding.[46]
	GR No. 148190 2004-08-17	JESSIE DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner's argument that she must be acquitted in view of the DARAB's finding that Sarmiento forfeited his security of tenure by his failure to pay rent is untenable. The DARAB issued its decision on September 3, 1998, while the eviction took place on May 28, 1996. The DARAB decision could not cure the criminal liability that already attached upon the actual unauthorized dispossession. In Valino v. Muñoz,[30] we declared that even a subsequent or independent finding of the Court of Agrarian Relations (now the DARAB)[31] that the ejectment may be authorized under Section 36 cannot cure the criminal liability that already attaches upon the actual dispossession without previous court authority.