This case has been cited 11 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| During the pendency of the case, the province represented by the governor entered into a compromise agreement with Sunrise on June 14, 2005. On the same date, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, through a unanimous resolution, approved the same.[5] Subsequently, the parties moved for the dismissal of the civil case, not on account of the settlement, but on the ground that the court did not acquire jurisdiction for failure of any of the parties to comply with Section 267[6] of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, or the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991.[7] Upon the same ground, the parties no longer sought judicial approval of the compromise agreement.[8] | |||||
|
2007-03-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Our rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent such eventualities as conflicting final decisions as in the case at bar. We have ruled that what is important in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[11] | |||||
|
2007-02-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court, in granting or dismissing an application for a writ of preliminary injunction based on the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidence must state in its order the findings and conclusions based on the evidence and the law. This is to enable the appellate court to determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in resolving, one way or the other, the plea for injunctive relief. The trial court's exercise of its judicial discretion whether to grant or deny an application for a writ of preliminary injunction involves the assessment and evaluation of the evidence, and its findings of facts are ordinarily binding and conclusive on the appellate court and this Court.[66] | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The next most logical step would then be for the Court to simply set aside the challenged resolutions, remand the case to the CA and direct the latter to resolve on the merits of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 58799. But, that would further delay the case. Considering the issues raised which can be resolved on the basis of the pleadings and documents filed, and the fact that petitioner herself has asked the Court to decide her petition on the merits, the Court deems it more practical and in the greater interest of justice not to remand the case to the CA but, instead, to resolve the controversy once and for all.[29] | |||||
|
2005-09-13 |
|||||
| Petitioners allege that forum shopping does not exist where two different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised and two objectives were sought, citing the case of Golangco vs. CA.[13] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have held in several cases that the rule that a petition raising a purely question of fact is dismissible, is not absolute. The rule admits of exceptions, one of which is when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts or circumstances of sufficient weight or significance, which if considered, would justify a different conclusion.[23] In our view, the instant case falls under this exception. | |||||
|
2001-04-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| A party is guilty of forum shopping when he repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.[3] And what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists is the vexation caused the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[4] Petitioner herein claimed before the Court of Appeals that the Chairman and Members of the Ad Hoc Committee investigating the administrative case against him were biased such that he was seeking that - | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, the Rules of Court do not require that issues be joined before preliminary injunction may issue. Preliminary injunction may be granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, ordering a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.[21] For as long as the requisites for its issuance are present in the case, such issuance is valid. | |||||