Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. 12-8-07-CA 2015-06-16	RE: LETTER OF CA JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF NLRC RE: REQUEST OF CA JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE BRION, J.
The Dissent conveniently fails to mention that contemporaneous constructions of administrative or executive agencies are merely at best advisory and not binding on the courts, for by the Constitution and the law, the courts are given the task of finally determining what the law means.[33] We do so under our authority to state what the law is[34] and deference to an agency’s statutory interpretation should be withheld whenever it conflicts with the language of the statute, as in the present case.
	GR No. 179408 2014-03-05	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ BRION, J.
Article 8 of the Civil Code embodies the basic principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle established matters) that enjoins adherence to judicial precedents embodied in the decision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis, in turn, is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.[59] The doctrine of (horizontal) stare decisis is one of policy, grounded on the necessity of securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions.[60]
	AM No. 09-5-2-SC 2013-04-11	IN MATTER OF BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN ELECTIONS OF INTEGRATED BAR OF PHILIPPINES. ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO v. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN MENDOZA, J.
The notion that the ruling in Velez [50] should not be considered at all by the Court because it is barred by the Omnibus Motion Rule deserves scant consideration. It may have been earlier overlooked, but the Court is not barred from motu propio taking judicial notice of such judicial pronouncement, pursuant to its continuing supervisory powers over the IBP.
	GR No. 203302 2013-03-12	MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
x x x. The essence of due process, we have consistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. x x x.[28]
	GR No. 189529 2012-08-10	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MARICAR B. BUENVIAJE-CARREON PEREZ, J.
The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.[13]
	GR No. 154113 2011-12-07	EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside. [56] For the Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the Court, especially with a new membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular decision that it determines, after re-examination, to call for a rectification. [57]
	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc.,[17] the Court held that, "The Constitution is quite emphatic that the operation of a public utility shall not be exclusive."[18] In Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. National Telecommunications Commission,[19] the Court held that, "Neither Congress nor the NTC can grant an exclusive `franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization' to operate a public utility."[20] In National Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[21] the Court held that, "Exclusivity of any public franchise has not been favored by this Court such that in most, if not all, grants by the government to private corporations, the interpretation of rights, privileges or franchises is taken against the grantee."[22] In Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,[23] the Court held that, "The Constitution mandates that a franchise cannot be exclusive in nature."[24]