Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MMDA v. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 211833 2015-04-07	FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA v. JUDICIAL REYES, J.
Presiding Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva (petitioner) directly came to this Court via a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari, and Declaratory Relief[1] under Rules 65 and 63 of the Rules of Court, respectively, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, to assail the policy of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level courts, on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
	GR No. 199199 2013-08-27	MARICRIS D. DOLOT v. RAMON PAJE REYES, J.
The concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.[30] Now cast in stone under Rule 8 of the Rules, the writ of continuing mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure than that of ordinary civil actions for the enforcement/violation of environmental laws, which are covered by Part II (Civil Procedure). Similar to the procedure under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules requires that the petition filed should be sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action; otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright. Courts must be cautioned, however, that the determination to give due course to the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that must be applied in a reasonable manner in consonance with the spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of seeing to it that justice is served.[31]
	GR No. 188487 2011-02-14	VAN D. LUSPO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
On the other hand, a ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.[61] It connotes an act wherein nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it.[62] It is practically a mechanical act;[63] hence, what can be done by the delegate may be sub-delegated by him to others.[64]