Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONFEDERATION OF SUGAR PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM .

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AM No. 12-8-07-CA 2015-06-16	RE: LETTER OF CA JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF NLRC RE: REQUEST OF CA JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE BRION, J.
Grant retirement benefits to qualified employees.[50]
	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
Finally, even assuming that the Court reverses itself and pronounces the indispensability of presenting the quarterly ITRs to prove entitlement to the claimed refund, petitioner should not be prejudiced for relying on Philam. The CTA En Banc merely based its pronouncement on a case that does not enjoy the benefit of stare decis et non quieta movere which means "to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established."[31] As between a CTA En Banc Decision (Millennium) and this Court's Decision (Philam), it is elementary that the latter should prevail.
	GR No. 184622 2013-07-03	PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. VICTOR AFRICA BERSAMIN, J.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when the Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, the courts will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially similar, regardless of whether the parties and property involved are the same.[143] The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved, not upon the judgment that results therefrom. It is in this particular sense that stare decisis differs from res judicata, because res judicata is based upon the judgment.[144]
	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
G.R. No. 137533, as reiterated in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201 and 166608, is binding and applicable to the present case following the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means "to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established."[70] Under the doctrine, when this Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.[71] The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved and not upon the judgment, which results therefrom. In this particular sense, stare decisis differs from res judicata, which is based upon the judgment.[72]
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
As mentioned, the early challenge to RA No. 10153 came through a petition filed with this Court - G.R. No. 196271[3] - assailing the constitutionality of both HB No. 4146 and SB No. 2756, and challenging the validity of RA No. 9333 as well for non-compliance with the constitutional plebiscite requirement. Thereafter, petitioner Basari Mapupuno in G.R. No. 196305 filed another petition[4] also assailing the validity of RA No. 9333.
	GR No. 168770 2011-02-09	ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
In all then, the issues and supporting arguments presented by both sets of petitioners in these consolidated cases have already previously been passed upon, discussed at length, and practically peremptorily resolved in Heirs of Moreno and the November 2008 Tudtud ruling. The Ouanos, as petitioners in G.R. No. 168770, and the Inocians, as respondents in G.R. No. 168812, are similarly situated as the heirs of Moreno in Heirs of Moreno and Benjamin Tudtud in Tudtud. Be that as it may, there is no reason why the ratio decidendi in Heirs of Moreno and Tudtud should not be made to apply to petitioners Ouanos and respondents Inocians such that they shall be entitled to recover their or their predecessors' respective properties under the same manner and arrangement as the heirs of Moreno and Tudtud. Stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established).[27]
	GR No. 164631 2009-06-26	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RENE RALLA BELISTA PERALTA, J.
where DARAB acknowledges that the decision of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under RA 6657 is a power vested in the courts.[13] Although Section 5, Rule XIX of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that the land valuation cases decided by the adjudicator are now appealable to the Board, such rule could not change the clear import of Section 57 of RA No. 6657 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation is in the RTC. Thus, Section 57 authorizes direct resort to the SAC in cases involving petitions for the determination of just compensation.[14] In accordance with the said Section 57, petitioner properly filed the petition before the RTC and, hence, the RTC erred in dismissing the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.[15] Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies while rules of procedure cannot.[16]
	GR No. 178256 2008-07-23	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ROLANDO S. CRUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Mamaril is binding and applicable to the present case following the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere which means "to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established."[12] Under the doctrine, when the Supreme Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.[13] The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved and not upon the judgment which results therefrom. In this particular sense stare decisis differs from res judicata which is based upon the judgment.[14]
	GR No. 157206 2008-06-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. PLACIDO ORILLA AND CLARA DY ORILLA NACHURA, J.
The expropriation of private property under RA 6657 is a revolutionary kind of expropriation,[23] being a means to obtain social justice by distributing land to the farmers, envisioning freedom from the bondage to the land they actually till. As an exercise of police power, it puts the landowner, not the government, in a situation where the odds are practically against him. He cannot resist it. His only consolation is that he can negotiate for the amount of compensation to be paid for the property taken by the government. As expected, the landowner will exercise this right to the hilt, subject to the limitation that he can only be entitled to "just compensation." Clearly therefore, by rejecting and disputing the valuation of the DAR, the landowner is merely exercising his right to seek just compensation.[24]