This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-11-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On the procedure, the Court agrees with the CTA En Banc that the Commissioner failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 8, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals[31] requiring that "the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division." The word "must" clearly indicates the mandatory -- not merely directory -- nature of a requirement."[32] | |||||
|
2010-03-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On March 8, 2010, petitioner filed with the Court a Supplement to the Petition with a Most Urgent Reiterating Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or a Status Quo Order[22] arguing that: (1) the election protest should have been dismissed after no majority vote was obtained by respondent Pagdanganan after rehearing; (2) the Order dated March 4, 2010 and the writ of execution dated March 5, 2010 were null and void, as they pertained to a wrong Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division; (3) no valid decision could have been rendered by the COMELEC En Banc without the originals of the ballots having been appreciated; (4) public respondent ignored the recent ruling of the Court in Corral v. Commission on Elections,[23] which made the Resolutions dated December 1, 2009 and February 8, 2010 null and void; and (5) all of the above are clear revelations that there is something terribly wrong in the adjudication of the above case - both on the Division and on the En Banc levels - which the Honorable Court should not allow to bear any further illicit consequences through the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order/status quo ante order. | |||||