This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| IF IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION.[4] As gleaned from the issues presented by petitioner, it is quite evident that petitioner would want this Court to revisit the final and executory decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38445, where petitioner's claim of security of tenure was settled, and in CA-G.R. SP No. 63895 which resolved petitioner's complaint for redemption. However, this cannot be done by this Court without violating the doctrine of res judicata. | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| parks, along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely or high risk venues for its commission.[43] The accused-appellant heavily relied on denial as his defense, which is inherently a weak and unreliable defense.[44] His denial is feeble, flimsy, self-serving and uncorroborated. Hence, it cannot prevail over Rea's unwavering and positive | |||||