Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOMINGO A. TUZON v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187836 2014-11-25	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM PEREZ, J.
The Local Government Code of 1991 expressly provides that the Sangguniang Panlungsod is vested with the power to "reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the city"[116] subject to the pertinent provisions of the Code. It is also settled that an ordinance may be modified or repealed by another ordinance.[117] These have been properly applied in G.R. No. 156052, where the Court upheld the position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to reclassify the land subject of the Ordinance,[118] and declared that the mayor has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027, provided that it has not been repealed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or otherwise annulled by the courts.[119] In the same case, the Court also used the principle that the Sanguniang Panlungsod is in the best position to determine the needs of its constituents[120] that the removal of the oil depots from the Pandacan area is necessary "to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals."[121]
	GR No. 172334 2013-06-05	DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO REYES, J.
To support her stance that the Office of the Ombudsman's order of suspension should not have been executed while her period to appeal has not yet lapsed, Pia cites the cases of Tuzon v. CA,[27] Lapid v. CA[28] and Lopez v. CA.[29] Given, however, subsequent jurisprudence on the matter, Pia's argument is misplaced.
	AM NO. RTJ-04-1840 2007-08-02	LAGCAO v. JUDGE IRENEO LEE GAKO CORONA, J.
Respondent considered Ordinance No. 1772 as one such supervening event and we do not think he committed grave abuse of discretion in doing so. The ordinance did include lot no. 1029 as one of its socialized housing sites and indicated the association as potential beneficiaries for being occupants thereof.[35] The implementation of the demolition order would have resulted in the destruction of the structures on the lot built by the members of the association who may become entitled to the lot later on by virtue of the ordinance. An ordinance is presumed valid unless repealed or declared invalid by the courts.[36]
	GR NO. 156052 2007-03-07	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
On the other hand, the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city."[20] One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts.[21] He has no other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr.,[22] we stated the reason for this:These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.[23]