This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Although the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter was not raised at bench by either of the parties, the Court will first address such question before delving into the procedural and substantive issues of the instant petition. After all, it is the duty of the courts to consider the question of jurisdiction before they look into other matters involved in the case, even though such question is not raised by any of the parties.[29] Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and, even if such question is neither raised by the pleadings nor suggested by counsel, they may recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying pleadings, dismissing the action, or otherwise noticing the defect, at any stage of the proceedings.30 Besides, issues or errors not raised by the parties may be resolved by the Court where, as in this case, the issue is one of jurisdiction; it is necessary in arriving at a just decision; and the resolution of the issues raised by the parties depend upon the determination of the unassigned issue or error, or is necessary to give justice to the parties.[31] | |||||
|
2010-10-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| More importantly, the CA had to rule on the issue because it is essential and indispensable for the just resolution of the case. In Villaflores v. RAM System Services, Inc.,[17] we had occasion to state that issues or errors not raised by the parties may be resolved by this Court when it is necessary to arrive at a just decision, and the resolution of the issues raised by the parties depend upon the determination of the unassigned issue or error, or is necessary to give justice to the parties. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This conflict in the decisions of the different divisions of the appellate court would have been avoided had the two certiorari petitions been consolidated or had the Fourth Division, when apprised of the earlier ruling, remained consistent with the Ninth Division's pronouncements. The various divisions of the CA are, in a sense, coordinate courts, and, pursuant to the policy of judicial stability, a division of the appellate court should not interfere with the decision of the other divisions of the court, otherwise confusion will ensue and may seriously hinder the administration of justice.[26] | |||||