Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO v. BAYANI F. FERNANDO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 156556-57 2011-10-04	ENRIQUE U. BETOY v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PERALTA, J.
Based on the foregoing, this Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, while concurrent with that of the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, does not give litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of forum from which to seek such relief. [11] The determination of whether the assailed law and its implementing rules and regulations contravene the Constitution is within the jurisdiction of regular courts. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the Regional Trial Courts.[12]
	GR No. 168918 2009-03-02	PEOPLE v. HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO Y CASTILIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent Dumlao claims that the GSIS has not been prejudiced because it still owns the properties subject matter of this case. This Court cannot rule on this claim, the same being a factual issue and a defense he is raising. The appreciation of this claim is not proper in this forum and is better left to the trial court, since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[31]
	GR NO. 166052 2007-08-29	ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Francisco, Jr. v. Fernando[18] more specifically declares that the transcendental importance of the issues raised must relate to the merits of the petition.
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
But this Court's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, while concurrent with that of the regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals, does not give litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of forum from which to seek such relief.[28] It has long been established that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and call for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.[29] This circumstance alone warrants the outright dismissal of the present action.