Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 196156 2014-01-15	VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER v. ERMA YBALLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is further recalled that on June 23, 2011, petitioner moved to consolidate the present case with G.R. Nos. 154113, 187861 and 187778 which was opposed by respondents. Under Resolution dated August 1, 2011, the Third Division denied the motion for consolidation, citing the earlier dismissal of the petition on June 8, 2011.[23] However, on motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, said resolution was set aside on October 19, 2011 and the present case was ordered consolidated with G.R. Nos. 154113, 187778 and 187861 and transferred to the First Division where the latter cases are pending.[24]
	GR No. 196156 2014-01-15	VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER v. ERMA YBALLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On December 7, 2011, the Decision[25] in the consolidated cases (G.R. Nos. 154113, 187778, 187861 and 196156) was rendered, the dispositive portion of which states:
	AM No. MTJ-11-1790 2013-12-11	OCA v. JUDGE RAYMUNDO D. LOPEZ CARPIO, J.
The Docket Inventory attached to Mr. Tutaan's letter, and purporting to exonerate him from culpability, was executed on 16 February 2011.[48] The Docket Inventory attached to the audit report was executed on 7 March 2011.[49] Mr. Tutaan's explanation that the cases were already reflected in the 16 February 2011 Docket Inventory is of no moment because when the 7 March 2011 Docket Inventory was executed, the cases remained undecided. Besides, 11 out of the 21 cases cited by the OCA are still missing from the 16 February 2011 Docket Inventory.[50]
	GR No. 191475 2013-12-11	PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. IGNACIO B. TAGYAMON PERALTA, J.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.[36] Where the facts are essentially different, however, stare decisis does not apply, for a perfectly sound principle as applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variant is introduced.[37]
	GR No. 158540 2004-07-08	SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE CEMENT MANUFACTURERS CORP. TINGA, J,
In short, if we were to rule for respondents we would be confirming the exercise by two judicial bodies of jurisdiction over basically the same subject matter¾precisely the split-jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly administration of justice.[64] The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive especially considering that the law expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review without mention of any other court that may exercise corollary or ancillary jurisdiction in relation to the SMA. The provision refers to the Court of Appeals but only in regard to procedural rules and dispositions of appeals from the CTA to the Court of Appeals.[65]