This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence taught us well that res judicata under the first concept or as a bar against the prosecution of a second action exists when there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action in the first and second actions. The judgment in the first action is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, including the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all matters that could have been adjudged in that case. In contrast, res judicata under the second concept or estoppel by judgment exists when there is identity of parties and subject matter but the causes of action are completely distinct. The first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved herein.[17] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The title to a public office may not be contested except directly, by quo warranto proceedings; and it cannot be assailed collaterally,[28] even through mandamus[29] or a motion to annul or set aside order.[30] In Nacionalista Party v. De Vera,[31] the Court ruled that prohibition does not lie to inquire into the validity of the appointment of a public officer. | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form, express or implied, of the intention to surrender, renounce, and relinquish the office and the acceptance by competent and lawful authority.[28] To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office, there must be: (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term; (b) an act of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the proper authority.[29] | |||||