This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Finally, AAVA claims that the power to evaluate, approve or disapprove zoning ordinances lies with the HLURB under Article IV, Section 5(b) of Executive Order No. 648.[27] AAVA reminds us that the decisions of administrative agencies on matters pertaining to their jurisdiction will generally not be disturbed by the courts.[28] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules, and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle, must immediately be struck down.[42] Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but it extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.[43] | |||||
|
2000-05-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This sentiment was echoed in the later case of San Luis vs. Court of Appeals[13] where it was ruled that- | |||||