This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 2(c) of the Local Government Code declares the policy of the State "to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions." This provision applies to national government projects affecting the environmental or ecological balance of the particular community implementing the project.[52] Exactly, Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code requires prior consultations with the concerned sectors and the prior approval of the Sanggunian. It was said that the Congress introduced these provisions to emphasize the legislative concern "for the maintenance of a sound ecology and clean environment."[53] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Here, petitioner makes no attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law. At bottom, then, petitioner's last and only remaining remedy is to seek an amendment of the law in question, a matter which should be addressed to Congress no less. For at the end of the day, the legislature is the primary judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness and expediency of any law.[7] | |||||
|
2001-03-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Controverting the foregoing asseverations of plaintiff, defendant asserted, inter alia that the transactions mentioned by plaintiff are that of plaintiff and Fojas-Arca only, [in] which defendant is not involved; Vehemently, it was denied by defendant that the special withdrawal slips were honored and treated as if it were checks, the truth being that when the special withdrawal slips were received by defendant, it only verified whether or not the signatures therein were authentic, and whether or not the deposit level in the passbook concurred with the savings ledger, and whether or not the deposit is sufficient to cover the withdrawal; if plaintiff treated the special withdrawal slips paid by Fojas-Arca as checks then plaintiff has to blame itself for being grossly negligent in treating the withdrawal slips as check when it is clearly stated therein that the withdrawal slips are non-negotiable; that defendant is not a privy to any of the transactions between Fojas-Arca and plaintiff for which reason defendant is not duty bound to notify nor give notice of anything to plaintiff. If at first defendant had given notice to plaintiff it is merely an extension of usual bank courtesy to a prospective client; that defendant is only dealing with its depositor Fojas-Arca and not the plaintiff. In summation, defendant categorically stated that plaintiff has no cause of action against it (pp. 1-3, Dec.; pp. 368-370, id).[3] Petitioner's complaint[4] for a sum of money and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113, docketed as Civil Case No. 29546, was dismissed together with the counterclaim of defendant. | |||||