This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, we cannot agree with UIC's contention that the computation of the net incremental proceeds did not comply with our ruling in St. Joseph's College v. St. Joseph's College Workers' Association.[41] We note that the basic formula used by the tripartite committee, and agreed upon by the parties, is consistent with St. Joseph's College, including deductions for "non-paying students like scholars," "students who did not pay," "increase in salaries," and "increases in related benefits."[42] However, some of the amounts submitted by UIC were disallowed by the tripartite committee for being inadmissible and self-serving, based as they were on unaudited financial statements. As a result, certain items in the initial formula no longer appeared in the final computation. Such disallowance, however, should not be interpreted as a departure from St. Joseph 's College; it simply means that the deduction is effectively nil because the amounts claimed had not been adequately proved. | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| x x x. But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down. Its duty is to say what the law is as enacted by the lawmaking body. That is not the same as saying what the law should be or what is the correct rule in a given set of circumstances. It is not the province of the judiciary to look into the wisdom of the law nor to question the policies adopted by the legislative branch. Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to remedy every unjust situation that may arise from the application of a particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial legislation if that would be necessary in the premises. But as always, with apt judicial caution and cold neutrality, the Court must carry out the delicate function of interpreting the law, guided by the Constitution and existing legislation and mindful of settled jurisprudence. The Court's function is therefore limited, and accordingly, must confine itself to the judicial task of saying what the law is, as enacted by the lawmaking body.[281] | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the award of temperate damages, the increase in the amount thereof by the RTC is improper. The RTC could no longer examine the amounts awarded by the MeTC since respondent did not appeal from the Decision of the MeTC.[37] It is well-settled that a party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.[38] While there are exceptions to this rule, such as if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors,[39] none apply here. | |||||