Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. GENARO LUALHATI

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
It bears stressing that the basic facts of the present case and those of G.R. No. 137533 and G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201 and 166608 are the same. Clearly, in light of G.R. No. 137533 and G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201 and 166608, which the Court follows as precedents, the present action for reconveyance cannot prosper. It is the Court's duty to apply the previous rulings in G.R. No. 137533 and in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201 and 166608 to the present case. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue, as in the present case, should be decided in the same manner.[74]
	GR No. 166910 2010-10-19	ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO v. TOLL REGULATORY BOARD VELASCO JR., J.
It is apropos to state at this juncture that, in determining the reasonableness of the subsequent toll rate increases, it behooves the TRB to seek out the Commission on Audit ("COA") for assistance in examining and auditing the financial books of the public utilities concerned. Section 22, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Title 1, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 expressly authorizes the COA to examine the aforementioned documents in connection with the fixing of rates of every nature, including as in this case, the fixing of toll fees.[120] We have on certain occasions applied this provision. Manila Electric Company, Inc. v. Lualhati easily comes to mind where this Court tasked the Energy Regulatory Commission to seek the assistance of the COA in determining the reasonableness of the rate increases that MERALCO intended to implement.[121] We have consistently held that "the law is deemed written into every contract."[122] Being a provision of law, this authority of the COA under the Administrative Code should therefore be deemed written in the subject contracts i.e. the STOAs.
	GR No. 150141 2009-02-12	AGENCIA EXQUISITE OF BOHOL v. CIR AZCUNA, J.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis et not quieta movere[34] it behooves the Court to apply its previous ruling in Lhuillier and Trustworthy to the cases under consideration. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue, as in the present consolidated cases, should be decided in the same manner.[35]
	GR No. 178256 2008-07-23	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ROLANDO S. CRUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It bears stressing that the facts of the present case and those of Mamaril are the same. Clearly, in the light of Mamaril, which the Court follows as a precedent, the DOTC did not effect Cruz's termination with bad faith and, consequently, no backwages can be awarded in his favor. It is the Court's duty to apply the previous ruling in Mamaril to the instant case. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue, as in the present case, should be decided in the same manner.[16]
	GR No. 170934 2008-07-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. EAST ASIA UTILITIES CORPORATION PUNO, CJ.
The findings of administrative or regulatory agencies on matters within their technical area of expertise are generally accorded not only respect but finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.[19] Specifically, the matter of rate-fixing calls for a technical examination and a specialized review of specific details which the courts are ill-equipped to enter; hence, such matters are primarily entrusted to the administrative or regulating authority.[20]
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
Congress enacted the EPIRA on June 8, 2001; on June 26, 2001, it took effect.[7]