Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YAZAKI TORRES MANUFACTURING v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175417 2015-02-09	GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY PERALTA, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule in our jurisprudence that administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with by the courts.[6] Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with regulation of activities coming under its special and technical training and knowledge, for the exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decision and a matter that is best discharged by the concerned government agency and not by the courts.[7] More so where, as in the present case, the prime consideration is the interest of the public at large on the issue of basic water need. Certainly, the Deed of Transfer and Acceptance entered into by the NHA and GMAWD was the result of a valid exercise of the NHA's management prerogative.
	GR No. 180050 2011-04-12	RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA NACHURA, J.
On November 10, 2006, petitioners Rodolfo G. Navarro, Victor F. Bernal and Rene O. Medina, former political leaders of Surigao del Norte, filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No. 175158) challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355.[6] The Court dismissed the petition on technical grounds. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied.[7]
	GR No. 171427 2011-03-30	STERLING SELECTIONS CORPORATION v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NACHURA, J.
It is a doctrine of long-standing that factual findings of administrative bodies on technical matters within their area of expertise should be accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence even if they are not overwhelming or preponderant.[69] Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency. The exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decision and a matter that is best discharged by the government agency concerned and not by the courts.[70]
	GR NO. 173034 2007-10-09	PHARMACEUTICAL v. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An administrative agency like respondent possesses quasi-legislative or rule-making power or the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.[78] Such express grant of rule-making power necessarily includes the power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same.[79] This is to allow administrative agencies flexibility in formulating and adjusting the details and manner by which they are to implement the provisions of a law,[80] in order to make it more responsive to the times. Hence, it is a standard provision in administrative rules that prior issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent therewith are declared repealed or modified.