Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOMAS N. JOSON III v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On July 22, 2014, a complaint/affidavit[10] was filed by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas "Ching" Enciso VI before the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of Plunder[11] and violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,[12] otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," in connection with the five (5) phases of the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati Parking Building).[13]
	GR No. 182065 2009-10-27	EVELYN ONGSUCO v. MARIANO M. MALONES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies is intended to preclude a court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Thus, a case where the issue raised is a purely legal question, well within the competence; and the jurisdiction of the court and not the administrative agency, would clearly constitute an exception.[27] Resolving questions of law, which involve the interpretation and application of laws, constitutes essentially an exercise of judicial power that is exclusively allocated to the Supreme Court and such lower courts the Legislature may establish. [28]
	GR No. 185132 2009-04-24	GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. CA 12TH DIVISION NACHURA, J.
At this point we must emphasize that the suspension from office of an elective official, whether as a preventive measure or as a penalty, will undeservedly deprive the electorate of the services of the person they have conscientiously chosen and voted into office.[27]
	GR No. 147423 2008-10-15	TIRSO Z. OPORTO v. MEMBERS OF BOARD OF INQUIRY NACHURA, J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies mandates that whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.[33] This rule is based on the practical principle that the administrative agency should be given a chance to correct its error,[34] and that relief first sought from a superior administrative agency could render court action unnecessary.[35]