Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181973 2013-04-17	AMELIA AQUINO v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY PEREZ, J.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the Petition in this case is hereby DISMISSED on the ground that it is already barred by the principle of res judicata.[15]
	GR No. 145336 2013-02-20	REYNANTE TADEJA v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
It is worth pointing out that the motion in Licayan was granted pro hac vice, which is a Latin term used by courts to refer to rulings rendered "for this one particular occasion."[62] A ruling expressly qualified as such cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases.[63]
	GR NO. 172103 2007-04-13	CITIZENS' BATTLE v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
Undeterred, CIBAC filed the instant Petition for Certiorari[11] before this Court, raising two issues, viz: A.
	GR NO. 172103 2007-04-13	CITIZENS' BATTLE v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
Moreover, footnote 37 of Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna states that "for a discussion of how to compute additional nominees for parties other than the first, see Veterans x x x." It clarifies the confusion created by the imprecise formula expressed in Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna. Thus, the Court rules that the claimed Ang Bagong Bayani and Bayan Muna formula has not modified the Veterans formula. As a matter of fact, there was really no other formula approved by the Court other than the Veterans formula in fixing the number of additional seats for the other qualified party-list groups. Also, in Partido ng Manggagawa v. COMELEC, the Court found that the confusion in the computation of additional seats for the other qualified party-list groups arose "[from] the way the Veterans formula was cited in the June 25, 2003 Resolution of the Court in Ang Bagong Bayani." We reiterated that "the prevailing formula for the computation of additional seats for party-list winners is the formula stated in the landmark case of Veterans x x x."[17]
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections[8] declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.[9]