This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, tempered the application of procedural rules,[14] as well as relaxed the requirement of locus standi whenever confronted with an important issue of overreaching significance to society.[15] | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the case of taxpayers' suits, the party suing as a taxpayer must prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[24] | |||||
|
2006-06-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| TMEE, in its Supplemental Petition filed seven (7) days after the filing of the petition, did subsequently pray for the nullification of the Sandiganbayan resolution on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. TMEE deserves some blame for failing to include such prayer in its original petition, yet given the attendant circumstances, it would be an act of triviality to dismiss the petition on that ground alone. For one, even assuming that the petition is indeed an original action for injunction, it was ruled in Del Mar v. Pagcor[17] that "this Court has the discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition at bar if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction."[18] Indeed, such compelling reasons, as adverted to before, are present in this case. | |||||
|
2006-02-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| [33] Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 138298, November 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 485, 500. | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Practically the same procedural infirmities were raised in Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation where an almost identical factual setting obtained. Petitioners therein filed a petition for injunction directly before the Court which sought to enjoin respondent from operating the jai-alai games by itself or in joint venture with another corporate entity allegedly in violation of law and the Constitution. Respondents contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to take original cognizance of a petition for injunction because it was not one of the actions specifically mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondents likewise took exception to the alleged failure of petitioners to observe the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. In brushing aside the apparent procedural lapse, we held that "x x x this Court has the discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition at bar if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction."[4] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| will result in rejection of the Bidder's bid, in which event the BAC will proceed to the next lowest calculated bid to make a similar determination of that Bidder's capabilities to perform satisfactorily."[12] Out of the 57 bidders,[13] the BAC found MPC and the Total Information Management Corporation (TIMC) eligible. For technical evaluation, they were referred to the BAC's Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Department of Science and Technology | |||||