This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Latchme Motoomull v. Dela Paz,[34] the Court had dealt with a situation where jurisdiction over certain cases was transferred by a supervening legislation to another tribunal. Latchme involved a perfected appeal from the decision of the SEC and pending with the Court of Appeals at the time P.D. No. 902-A was enacted which transferred appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the SEC from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. On the question of whether the tribunal with which the cases were pending had lost jurisdiction over the appeal upon the effectivity of the new law, the Court ruled in the negative, citing the earlier case of Bengzon v. Inciong,[35] thus: The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute.[36] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The consistent stand of the Court has always been that a case should be decided in its totality, resolving all interlocking issues in order to render justice to all concerned and to end the litigation once and for all. Verily, courts should always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seed of future litigation.[51] Where the public interest so demands, the court will broaden its inquiry into a case and decide the same on the merits rather than merely resolve the procedural question raised.[52] Such rule obtains in this case. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Although the concomitant effect of the nullity of the Wage Order to those employees who have received the mandated increase was not put in issue, this Court shall make a definite pronouncement thereon to finally put this case to rest. As ruled by the Court in Latchme Motoomull v. Dela Paz,[55] "the Court will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation."[56] | |||||