Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF DUMAGUETE v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117 2013-10-17	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON REYES, J.
Although the NLRC Rules of Procedure, particularly Section 6 of Rule VI thereof, provides that the bond to be posted shall be "in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award," the merit of the motion shall always take precedence in the determination. Settled is the rule that procedural rules were conceived, and should thus be applied in a manner that would only aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter.[111]
	GR No. 180321 2013-03-20	EDITHA PADLAN v. ELENITA DINGLASAN PERALTA, J.
However, in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, an examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[15]
	GR No. 176162 2012-10-09	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Subsequently, the respondents filed their Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Declare Absence of Prima Facie Case[11] praying that the case be suspended immediately and that the CSC declare a complete absence of a prima facie case against them. Cueva, on the other hand, filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of Preventive Suspension[12] and an Omnibus Motion[13] seeking the issuance of an order of preventive suspension against Guevarra and Cezar and the inclusion of the following offenses in the formal charge against them: Grave Misconduct, Falsification of Official Document, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Being Notoriously Undesirable, and Violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713.
	GR No. 194024 2012-04-25	PHILIP L. GO v. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT MENDOZA, J.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[17] Thus, it was ruled that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.[18]