Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JOSE V. NEPOMUCENO AS PRESIDING JUDGE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 177857-58 2012-01-24	PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
To petitioners, it behooves the Republic to prove the jurisdictional facts warranting the Sandiganbayan's continued exercise of jurisdiction over ill-gotten wealth cases. Citing Manila Electric Company [Meralco] v. Ortañez,[66] petitioners argue that the jurisdiction of an adjudicatory tribunal exercising limited jurisdiction, like the Sandiganbayan, "depends upon the facts of the case as proved at the trial and not merely upon the allegation in the complaint."[67] Cited too is PCGG v. Nepumuceno,[68] where the Court held: The determinations made by the PCGG at the time of issuing sequestration ... orders cannot be considered as final determinations; that the properties or entities sequestered or taken-over in fact constitute "ill-gotten wealth" according to [E.O.] No. 1 is a question which can be finally determined only by a court - the Sandiganbayan. The PCGG has the burden of proving before the Sandiganbayan that the assets it has sequestered or business entity it has provisionally taken-over constitutes "ill-gotten wealth" within the meaning of [E.O.] No. 1 and Article No. XVIII (26) of the 1987 Constitution.
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2012-01-24	PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Even PCGG v. Nepomuceno[77] is not on all fours with the cases at bench, the issue therein being whether the regional trial court has jurisdiction over the PCGG and sequestered properties, vis-à-vis the present cases, which involve an issue concerning the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Like in Meralco, the holding in Nepomuceno is not determinative of the outcome of the cases at bar.
	GR No. 168338 2008-02-15	FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES PUNO, C.J.
As articulated in our jurisprudence, we have applied either the dangerous tendency doctrine or clear and present danger test to resolve free speech challenges. More recently, we have concluded that we have generally adhered to the clear and present danger test.[51]
	GR NOS. 159104-05 2007-10-05	RODOLFO M. CUENCA v. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT VELASCO, JR., J.
Petitioners contend that even if UHC was indeed sequestered, jurisdiction over the subject matter of petitioners' Complaint for enforcement or rescission of contract between petitioners and respondents belonged to the RTC and not the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners cited Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[35] involving Philippine Casino Operators Corporation (PCOC) which was sequestered on March 19, 1986. In said case, this Court held that the fact of sequestration alone did not automatically oust the RTC of jurisdiction to decide upon the question of ownership of the disputed gaming and office equipment as PCGG must be a party to the suit in order that the Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction may be correctly invoked, and as Section 2[36] of EO 14 was duly applied in PCGG v. Peña[37] and PCGG v. Nepomuceno,[38] which ineluctably spoke of respondent PCGG as a party-litigant.