Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO PATALINGHUG v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 210551 2015-06-30	JOSE J. FERRER v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA PERALTA, J.
Petitioner argues, however, that Ordinance No. S-2235 cannot be justified as an exercise of police power. The cases of Calalang v. Williams,[65] Patalinghug v. Court of Appeals,[66] and Social Justice Society (SJS), et al. v. Hon. Atienza, Jr.,[67] which were cited by respondents, are inapplicable since the assailed ordinance is a revenue measure and does not regulate the disposal or other aspect of garbage.
	GR No. 131481 2011-03-16	BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS v. E. M. RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
EMRASON further maintains that Ordinance No. 29-A of the Municipality of Dasmariñas is valid. Ordinance No. 29-A is complete in itself, and there is no more need to comply with the alleged requisites which DAR and Buklod are insisting upon. EMRASON quotes from Patalinghug v. Court of Appeals[23] (Patalinghug case) that "once a local government has reclassified an area as commercial, that determination for zoning purposes must prevail."
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
In the exercise of police power, property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government.[128] Otherwise stated, the government may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare.[129] However, the interference must be reasonable and not arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness, the methods or means used to protect public health, morals, safety or welfare must have a reasonable relation to the end in view.[130]