Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JELBERT B. GALICTO v. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The original plan to surrender the military bases changed.[37] At the height of the Second World War, the Philippine and the U.S. Legislatures each passed resolutions authorizing their respective Presidents to negotiate the matter of retaining military bases in the country after the planned withdrawal of the U.S.[38] Subsequently, in 1946, the countries entered into the Treaty of General Relations, in which the U.S. relinquished all control and sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, except the areas that would be covered by the American military bases in the country.[39] This treaty eventually led to the creation of the post-colonial legal regime on which would hinge the continued presence of U.S. military forces until 1991: the Military Bases Agreement (MBA) of 1947, the Military Assistance Agreement of 1947, and the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951.[40]
	GR No. 207145 2015-07-28	GIL G. CAWAD v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD PERALTA, J.
It is likewise beyond the territory of a writ of prohibition since generally, the purpose of the same is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels. It affords relief against usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction, the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.[20]
	GR No. 197556 2015-03-25	WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The procedural infirmities[23] pointed out by Ledesma are not adequate to cause the dismissal of the present petition. Gaye Maureen Cenabre presented to the Notary Public a Community Tax Certificate numbered 27401128 to prove her identity instead of a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing her photograph and signature as required by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. This rendered the jurat in the verification/certification of non-forum shopping of Waterfront as defective. Nonetheless, any flaw in the verification, being only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement, is not a fatal defect.[24] In like manner, there is no need to attach the certified true copy of the Board Resolution quoted in the Secretary's Certificate attached to the petition. Only the judgment, order or resolution assailed in the petition are the attachments required under Section 4,[25] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to be duplicate originals or certified true copies.
	GR No. 211356 2014-09-29	CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY VELASCO JR., J.
It is not essential that the challenged proceedings should be strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied to courts of justice, but it is sufficient if they are quasi-judicial.[7] To contrast, a party is said to be exercising a judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties, whereas quasi-judicial function is "a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies x x x required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."[8]
	GR No. 176897 2013-12-11	ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION v. ARMA TRADERS CORPORATION BRION, J.
First, the respondents correctly cited A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008 which refer to the amendment of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. It deleted the Community Tax Certificate among the accepted proof of identity of the affiant because of its inherent unreliability. The petitioners violated this when they used Community Tax Certificate No. 05730869 in their Petition for Review.[73] Nevertheless, the defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is not a fatal defect because it is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement that the Court may waive.[74] Furthermore, we cannot simply ignore the millions of pesos at stake in this case. To do so might cause grave injustice to a party, a situation that this Court intends to avoid.