This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy."[82] In the past, questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right to bear arms,[83] government contracts involving modernization of voters' registration lists,[84] and the status and existence of a public office.[85] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Neither can mandamus be issued unless a clear right of the bidder is shown. Mandamus does not lie if the right is doubtful.[35] Here, as discussed, Dong-A Consortium has no right to receive the award, since it failed to match the indicative price. | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In several cases,[19] the Court had the occasion to apply these provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. In these cases, the Court clearly ruled that the two requirements - the existence of appropriation and the attachment of the certification - are "conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts." | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.[14] Such exceptional and compelling circumstances were present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo[15] on the citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan[16] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla[17] on a government contract on the modernization and computerization of the voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[18] on the status and existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona[19] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area of a 144-hectare land. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo[33] on citizens' right to bear arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan[34] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla[35] on government contract involving modernization and computerization of voters' registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[36] on status and existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona[37] on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-industrial area. | |||||
|
2004-03-01 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the offer of the NHA to sell the subject property, as embodied in Resolution No. 2126, was similarly not accepted by the respondent.[24] Thus, the alleged contract involved in this case should be more accurately denominated as inexistent. There being no concurrence of the offer and acceptance, it did not pass the stage of generation to the point of perfection.[25] As such, it is without force and effect from the very beginning or from its incipiency, as if it had never been entered into, and hence, cannot be validated either by lapse of time or ratification.[26] Equity can not give validity to a void contract,[27] and this rule should apply with equal force to inexistent contracts. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Hence, the present Petition.[16] | |||||
|
2003-05-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| "Sec. 47. Certificate Showing Appropriation to Meet Contract. Except in the case of a contract for personal service, for supplies for current consumption or to be carried in stock not exceeding the estimated consumption for three (3) months, or banking transactions of government-owned or controlled banks, no contract involving the expenditure of public funds by any government agency shall be entered into or authorized unless the proper accounting official of the agency concerned shall have certified to the officer entering into the obligation that funds have been duly appropriated for the purpose and that the amount necessary to cover the proposed contract for the current calendar year is available for expenditure on account thereof, subject to verification by the auditor concerned. The certificate signed by the proper accounting official and the auditor who verified it, shall be attached to and become an integral part of the proposed contract, and the sum so certified shall not thereafter be available for expenditure for any other purpose until the obligation of the government agency concerned under the contract is fully extinguished." Referring to the aforequoted provisions, this Court has held that "(I)t is quite evident from the tenor of the language of the law that the existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts. The obvious intent is to impose such conditions as a priori requisites to the validity of the proposed contract."[93] | |||||