This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-07-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Diamonon v. Department of Labor and Employment, [20] We explained that an appellate court has a broad discretionary power in waiving the lack of assignment of errors in the following instances: (a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter; | |||||
|
2004-09-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| While Felomina sought to recover the litigated lot on the ground of implied trust and not on the invalidity of donation, the Court is clothed with ample authority to address the latter issue in order to arrive at a just decision that completely disposes of the controversy.[46] Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, they must be applied in a way that equitably and completely resolve the rights and obligations of the parties.[47] | |||||
|
2001-10-18 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We note that petitioner, believing that he won, did not appeal the trial court's decision. Petitioner is partly to blame for the difficult situation he is in, having filed his complaint with the regular courts instead of the HLURB. Nevertheless, both trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner had superior rights over the condominium unit, that petitioner was not bound by the mortgage in favor of the FUNDERS and, that QPSDCI violated its contract with petitioner by its failure to remit the latter's payments. Such findings are uncontested before us and provide enough ground to warrant the modification of the ruling, so that full relief may be accorded to petitioner. The general rule that an appellate court may only pass upon errors assigned may be waived, and the appellate court may consider matters not assigned when consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.[24] | |||||
|
2001-05-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.[8] It is presumed that an administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error committed in its forum.[9] Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies.[10] Hence, premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner. | |||||