This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners have committed two distinct acts of forum-shopping,[49] namely: (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs, and (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint within five days from its filing. | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, the lands in question had long been (almost 20 years) reclassified as residential before the instant case was filed. All those years, no one questioned the ordinance reclassifying the lands. If petitioner would like to have the reclassification of the lands involved changed to agricultural, the just and reasonable way of doing it is to go to the municipal council -- not the courts - that enacted the ordinance and to ask that the lands be reclassified again as agricultural. Technical matters such as zoning classifications and building certifications should be primarily resolved first by the administrative agency whose expertise relates therein.[62] The jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in character."[63] In this manner, we give the respect due to these agencies (the municipal council and the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission [now HLURB]), which unquestionably have primary jurisdiction to rule on matters of classification of lands. | |||||