Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAIME C. LOPEZ v. CITY OF MANILA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
Petitioners failed to pursue in their Memorandum the contention in the Complaint that the imposition of the Universal Charge on all end-users is oppressive and confiscatory, and amounts to taxation without representation. Hence, such contention is deemed waived or abandoned per Resolution[64] of August 3, 2004.[65] Moreover, the determination of whether or not a tax is excessive, oppressive or confiscatory is an issue which essentially involves questions of fact, and thus, this Court is precluded from reviewing the same.[66]
	GR NO. 139658 2005-06-21	PO3 WILLIAM M. MENDOZA v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioner's failure to exhaust all administrative remedies is fatal to his cause. It is elementary that where, as here, a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should first be resorted to.[8]
	GR NO. 159022 2005-02-23	MAYOR EDGARDO G. FLORES v. SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PAMPANGA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is a well-settled rule that where, as here, the petitioner has available remedies within the administrative machinery against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, the intervention of the courts can be resorted to by him only after having exhausted all such remedies.[10] The rationale of this rule rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly. The strict application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies will also prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court.[11] We cannot countenance petitioner's utter disregard of this procedural norm and frustrate its purpose of attaining a just, speedy, inexpensive and orderly judicial proceedings.
	GR No. 155591 2004-09-22	DR. PABLO R. OLIVARES v. MAYOR JOEY MARQUEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus may be resorted to only when there is no other plain, available, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.[7] Where administrative remedies are available, petitions for the issuance of these peremptory writs do not lie[8] in order to give the administrative body the opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts.[9]