This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Public respondent claims that the Appraisal Committees created under E.O. 132 are endowed with special technical knowledge, skills, expertise and training on the subject of appraisal; that the discretion given to the authorities on this matter is of such wide latitude that the Court will not interfere therewith, unless it is apparent that it is being used as a shield to a fraudulent transaction; and that government agencies or bodies dealing with basically technical matters deserve to be disentangled from undue interference from the courts, and so from the Ombudsman as well (Concerned Officials of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System [MWSS] v. Vasquez,[87] citing Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary[88] ).[89] | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| With leave of court, respondents filed a Demurrer to Evidence. Respondents argued that the Republic failed to present sufficient legal affirmative evidence to prove its claim. In particular, respondents' demurrer contends that the memorandum (Exh. B) and TLA No. 356 are not "legal evidence" because "legal evidence" is not meant to raise a mere suspicion or doubt. Respondents also claim that income tax returns are not sufficient to show one's holding in a corporation. Respondents also cited the factual antecedents culminating with the Court's decision in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Corp., Inc. v. Sec. of Environment and Natural Resources.[49] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| PICOP, however, argues that these rulings laid down in Tan v. Director of Forestry,[83] Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Deputy Executive Secretary [84] and Oposa do not find application in the present case allegedly because the issue here is the unlawful refusal of then DENR Secretary Alvarez to issue an IFMA to PICOP and not the matter of a timber license being merely a license or privilege.[85] | |||||