Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 192986 2013-01-15	ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING v. BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY BOARD REYES, J.
While the Court acknowledges that cases of transcendental importance demand that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure,[34] the delay of at least 15 years in the filing of the instant petition has actually rendered moot and academic the issues it now raises.
	GR No. 143398 2000-10-25	RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. COMELEC PANGANIBAN, ACTING CJ.
reconsideration of the division's resolution or final decision.[34] In fact, there was really no resolution or decision to speak of [35] because there was yet no promulgation, which was still scheduled on June 20, 2000 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court from an order of "promulgation of the Resolution of this case" by the First Division of the Comelec.[36] Under the existing Constitutional scheme, a party to an election case within the jurisdiction of the Comelec in division can not dispense with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a decision, resolution or final order of the Division of the Commission on Elections
	GR No. 138570 2000-10-10	BAYAN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA BUENA, J.
Notwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised in the petitions, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside the procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions, as we have done in the early Emergency Powers Cases,[20] where we had occasion to rule:"x x x ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino although they were involving only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and ruled that `transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.' We have since then applied the exception in many other cases. (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)." (Underscoring Supplied)