Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EQUI-ASIA PLACEMENT v. DFA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 166923 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH v. OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION PERALTA, J.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.[16] In view of the foregoing provision, the jurisdiction of regular courts involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation cannot be denied. We have had several occasions wherein We affirmed the power of the RTC to take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies for the power of judicial review is vested by the Constitution not only in this Court but in all Regional Trial Courts.[17] It was, therefore, erroneous for the RTC to abruptly dismiss the complaint filed by petitioners on the basis of lack of jurisdiction since said court clearly had the power to take cognizance of the same. In so doing, the lower court failed to ascertain factual issues necessary to determine whether the subject issuance is, indeed, invalid and violative of the Constitution. Considering the settled rule that this Court is not a trier of facts,[18] a remand of this case to the RTC for the proper determination of the merits of the complaint is just and proper.
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The constitutional challenge is also timely. It should be borne in mind that the requirement that a constitutional issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a competent court, such that, if the issue is not raised in the pleadings before that competent court, it cannot be considered at the trial and, if not considered in the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.[52] Records disclose that the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause was first raised, not in petitioner's appeal with the NLRC, but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration with said labor tribunal,[53] and reiterated in his Petition for Certiorari before the CA.[54] Nonetheless, the issue is deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but the CA which has the competence to resolve the constitutional issue. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merely performs a quasi-judicial function - its function in the present case is limited to determining questions of fact to which the legislative policy of R.A. No. 8042 is to be applied and to resolving such questions in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself;[55] thus, its foremost function is to administer and enforce R.A. No. 8042, and not to inquire into the validity of its provisions. The CA, on the other hand, is vested with the power of judicial review or the power to declare unconstitutional a law or a provision thereof, such as the subject clause.[56] Petitioner's interposition of the constitutional issue before the CA was undoubtedly seasonable. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to take up the issue in its decision.
	GR No. 166715 2008-08-14	ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST v. PURISIMA CORONA, J.
At any rate, this Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: "public interest," "justice and equity," "public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy and welfare."[33] In this case, the declared policy of optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public interest.
	GR No. 166006 2008-03-14	PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
On the first issue. It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. 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 not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.[32] In the recent case of Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. Department of Foreign Affairs,[33] this Court reiterated:There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, 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.[34] Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of through any of the actions cognizable by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief. Such review may be had in criminal actions, as in People v. Ferrer[35] involving the constitutionality of the now defunct Anti-Subversion law, or in ordinary actions, as in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds[36] involving the constitutionality of laws prohibiting aliens from acquiring public lands. The constitutional issue, however, (a) must be properly raised and presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.[37]
	GR NO. 173034 2007-10-09	PHARMACEUTICAL v. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. vs. Department of Foreign Affairs,[64] the Court held: x x x [T]his Court had, in the past, accepted as sufficient standards the following: "public interest," "justice and equity," "public convenience and welfare," and "simplicity, economy and welfare."[65] In this case, correct information as to infant feeding and nutrition is infused with public interest and welfare.
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. The second test mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.[49]