Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOTENIA GONO-JAVIER v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184406 2012-03-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERFECTO OBIAS PEREZ, J.
In their petition, LBP does not contest the valuation of the property and the amount to be paid as just compensation. It raised only the issue of "Whether or not the provisions of DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 13,[11] series of 1994, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 2, series of 2004, as further amended by DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 2008, are mandatory insofar as the computation of interest for P.D. 27-acquired properties is concerned."[12]
	GR No. 169336 2010-03-18	SPS. MELCHOR AND SATURNINA ALDE v. RONALD B. BERNAL CARPIO, J.
In their Answer,[10] petitioners declared that they have been in open, notorious and peaceful occupation, possession and cultivation of the property in the concept of an owner since 1994 when they bought the property from Adriano. Petitioners argued that respondents have no legal right over the property and that CLOA No. 00073938 issued in respondents' name is void. Petitioners also asked that they be declared the absolute and legal owners of the property.
	AM No. 2008-20-SC 2010-03-15	RE: COMPLAINT OF MRS. CORAZON S. SALVADOR AND SPS. NOEL AND AMELIA SERAFICO PER CURIAM
Terminating its investigation on November 23, 2009, the OAS-SC submitted its Memorandum[34] with the findings, to wit: (1) Noel and Amelia committed immorality because, when they got married in 1994, both had existing marriages which had not yet been judicially annulled or nullified; and (2) the spouses violated Republic Act No. 3019 and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel by misrepresenting that they could help set a case for agenda by the Court En Banc, which amounted to grave misconduct. Consequently, citing applicable penalties under the Civil Service Rules, it recommended the dismissal from the service of Noel and the forfeiture of all the benefits of Amelia, including accrued leave credits, both with prejudice to reemployment in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs).
	GR NO. 169251 2006-12-20	DEMIE L. URIARTE v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
TD No. 121 thus contained significant "revisions." The subsequent tax declarations, however, no longer contained alterations: TD No. 132[8] which canceled T.D. No. 121; ARP No. 93-08-00344[9] in 1994; and ARP No. 96-08-00349[10] in 1997. However, in ARP No. 96-08-00328[11] filed in 2000, the entries in the original tax declaration TD No. 3352 were restored.
	AM No. 02-10-598-RTC 2003-02-11	IN RE: DELAYED REMITTANCE OF COLLECTIONS OF TERESITA LYDIA R ODTUHAN PANGANIBAN, J.
In Re: Gener C. Endona,[19] the Court found the respondent clerk of court remiss in the performance of his duties. He deposited the collections for the month of June 1994 on August 1, 1994; and for the months of July and August 1994, on September 16, 1994. The delays were deemed unreasonable and violative of Administrative Circular No. 5-93. He was ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.