Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO.

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
Hence, the duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is inherent in executive power and is intimately related to the other executive functions. These functions include the faithful execution of the law in autonomous regions;[152] the right to prosecute crimes;[153] the implementation of transportation projects;[154] the duty to ensure compliance with treaties, executive agreements and executive orders;[155] the authority to deport undesirable aliens;[156] the conferment of national awards under the President's jurisdiction;[157] and the overall administration and control of the executive department.[158]
	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.,[45] the Court held that, "Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not repugnant to the Constitution."[46] In Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development,[47] the Court held that, police power "is `the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances x x x not repugnant to the constitution.'"[48] In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[49] the Court held that, "police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances x x x not repugnant to the Constitution."[50]
	GR No. 179554 2009-12-16	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. TRACKWORKS RAIL TRANSIT ADVERTISING BERSAMIN, J.
It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the dismantling of Trackworks' billboards, signages and other advertising media. MMDA simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy the billboards, signages and other advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[14] Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.,[15] and Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[16] the Court had the occasion to rule that MMDA's powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.[17]
	GR No. 180046 2009-04-02	REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA CARPIO, J.
Police power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good order or safety, and the general welfare of the people flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lex - the welfare of the people is the supreme law.[37] Police power primarily rests with the legislature although it may be exercised by the President and administrative boards by virtue of a valid delegation.[38] Here, no delegation of police power exists under RA 7722 authorizing the President to regulate the operations of non-degree granting review centers.
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Duration of contract 12 months Position Chief Officer Basic monthly salary US$1,400.00 Hours of work 48.0 hours per week Overtime US$700.00 per month Vacation leave with pay 7.00 days per month[5] On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.[6]
	GR No. 172457 2008-12-24	CJH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BIR TINGA, J.
The requisites for a petition for declaratory relief to prosper are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.[19]
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
Ordinance No. 8027 was passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila in the exercise of its police power. Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.[116] This power flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law).[117] While police power rests primarily with the national legislature, such power may be delegated.[118] Section 16 of the LGC, known as the general welfare clause, encapsulates the delegated police power to local governments:[119]