This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The CTA was created by R.A. No. 1125[11] in 1954. The CTA's standing in the hierarchy of courts in our jurisdiction, before its elevation to a collegiate tribunal by virtue of R.A. No. 9282, was that of a specialized court of limited jurisdiction.[12] It was not at the same level as the CA, since its decisions may be appealed thereto, and it was not also a trial court. Under Section 1 of R.A. No. 1125, the Presiding Judge of the CTA had the same qualifications, rank, category and privileges as the Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) while the Associate Judge of the CTA had the same qualifications, rank, category and privileges of a member of the CIR. In Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana v. Hon. Caluag,[13] the CIR was equal in rank with the Courts of First Instance. On 7 March 1994, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 164[14] adopting the Compensation and Position Classification System under Joint Resolution No. 1, series of 1994, which assigned SG 30 to the Presiding Judge of the CTA. | |||||
|
2004-07-08 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| At the same time, since the CTA is a court of limited jurisdiction, its jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case should be clearly conferred and should not be deemed to exist on mere implication.[60] Concededly, Rep. Act No. 1125, the statute creating the CTA, does not extend to it the power to review decisions of the DTI Secretary in connection with the imposition of safeguard measures.[61] Of course, at that time which was before the advent of trade liberalization the notion of safeguard measures or safety nets was not yet in vogue. | |||||