Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER v. VICENTE Q. ROXAS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Petitioners have come before the Court in their respective capacities as citizen-taxpayers and accordingly, assert that they "dutifully contribute to the coffers of the National Treasury."[146] Clearly, as taxpayers, they possess the requisite standing to question the validity of the existing "Pork Barrel System" under which the taxes they pay have been and continue to be utilized. It is undeniable that petitioners, as taxpayers, are bound to suffer from the unconstitutional usage of public funds, if the Court so rules. Invariably, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law,[147] as in these cases.
	GR No. 164987 2012-04-24	LAWYERS v. SECRETARY OF BUDGET MENDOZA, J.
Anent locus standi, "the rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[18] The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."[19] In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the general public, asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person, and could be suing as a "stranger," or as a "citizen" or "taxpayer."[20] Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[21] Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.[22]
	GR No. 165569 2010-07-29	UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. DANES B. SANCHEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[23] Here, there can be no forum shopping precisely because the CHED is without quasi-judicial power, and cannot make any disposition of the case - whether favorable or otherwise. As we held in Cabarrus, Jr. v. Bernas:[24]
	GR No. 162525 2008-09-23	ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS v. CITY OF URDANETA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners' contentions lack merit. The RTC properly allowed the taxpayers' suits. In Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Roxas,[23] we held:In the case of taxpayers' suits, the party suing as a taxpayer must prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.