This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The TESDA Act provides that the TESDA Secretariat, headed by the Director-General, shall propose the specific allocation of resources for the programs and projects it shall undertake pursuant to approved national technical education and skills development plan.[33] As chief executive officer of the TESDA Secretariat, the Director-General shall likewise exercise general supervision and control over its technical and administrative personnel.[34] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| But it must be stressed that accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457[31] of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.[32] Thus, it is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law. Petitioner has notably failed in this regard as it did not offer any evidence to prove that it has satisfied the foregoing requisites. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (4) May petitioner be held liable for damages? On the first issue, the general rule is that a public officer is not liable for damages which a person may suffer arising from the just performance of his official duties and within the scope of his assigned tasks.[15] An officer who acts within his authority to administer the affairs of the office which he/she heads is not liable for damages that may have been caused to another, as it would virtually be a charge against the Republic, which is not amenable to judgment for monetary claims without its consent.[16] However, a public officer is by law not immune from damages in his/her personal capacity for acts done in bad faith which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no longer protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions.[17] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person.[46] The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto[47] but the whole world.[48] An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication.[49] Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established.[50] It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[51] | |||||