Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 177130 2011-06-07	EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is well to emphasize that the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance thereof. [9] In the present case, however, where it is the Government which is being enjoined from implementing an issuance which enjoys the presumption of validity, such discretion must be exercised with utmost caution. Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, [10] enlightens: In Social Security Commission v. Judge Bayona, we ruled that a law is presumed constitutional until otherwise declared by judicial interpretation. The suspension of the operation of the law is a matter of extreme delicacy because it is an interference with the official acts not only of the duly elected representatives of the people but also of the highest magistrate of the land.
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline, the subject clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs, with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be employed.[61] Police power legislations adopted by the State to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people are generally applicable not only to future contracts but even to those already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public welfare.[62]
	GR NO. 173034 2007-10-09	PHARMACEUTICAL v. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to the issue of whether petitioner may prosecute this case as the real party-in-interest, the Court adopts the view enunciated in Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals,[4] to wit: The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.
	GR NO. 154330 2007-02-15	ZOSIMO GODINEZ v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent petitioners' contention that respondent is not a real party in interest, the same is without merit. Section 2, Rule 3 of the same Rules defines a real party in interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of a suit." In its complaint, respondent alleged that it will be prejudiced by petitioners' act complained of. Even assuming it will not suffer an injury from the alleged unlawful act of petitioners, its members or homeowners may sustain such injury. In this jurisdiction, an association has a standing to file suit for its members despite lack of interest if its members are directly affected by the action.[6]
	GR NO. 135092 2006-05-04	PUROK BAGONG SILANG ASSOCIATION v. EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, the rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the real parties-in-interest and in the name of the real party-in-interest.[21] The party whose legal right has been invaded or infringed or who sustained an injury is the only one who can maintain the action;[22] or the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. He must appear to be the present owner of the right sought to be enforced.[23] An association has the legal personality to represent its members and the outcome of the case will affect their vital interests.[24] Thus, in Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court ruled that the modern view is that an association has standing to complain an injury to its members. This view focuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its members despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action; similarly, an organization has standing to assert the concern of its constituents.