Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON M. ATIENZA v. JOSE T. VILLAROSA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170054 2013-01-21	GOYA v. GOYA PERALTA, J.
Incidentally, on July 16, 2009, the Company filed a Manifestation[15] informing this Court that its stockholders and directors unanimously voted to shorten the Company's corporate existence only until June 30, 2006, and that the three-year period allowed by law for liquidation of the Company's affairs already expired on June 30, 2009. Referring to Gelano v. Court of Appeals,[16] Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma,[17] and Atienza v. Villarosa,[18] it urged Us, however, to still resolve the case for future guidance of the bench and the bar as the issue raised herein allegedly calls for a clarification of a legal principle, specifically, whether the VA is empowered to rule on a matter not covered by the issue submitted for arbitration.
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. However, contrary to petitioner HLI's posture, PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. It may be, as urged, that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP. Such power or authority, however, is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. [94]
	GR No. 182677 2010-08-03	JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Instead, however, of denying the petition outright on the ground of mootness, the Court proceeds to resolve the legal issues in order to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and public.[26] In the present case, there is compelling reason to clarify the remedies available before and after the filing of an information in cases subject of inquest.
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
"Voucher," in its ordinary meaning, is a document which shows that services have been performed or expenses incurred.[42] When used in connection with disbursement of money, it implies the existence of an instrument that shows on what account or by what authority a particular payment has been made, or that services have been performed which entitle the party to whom it is issued to payment.[43]
	GR No. 166886 2008-07-30	MATTEL v. EMMA FRANCISCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Atienza v. Villarosa,[35] the petitioners, as Governor and Vice-Governor, sought for clarification of the scope of the powers of the Governor and Vice-Governor under the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991. While the terms of office of the petitioners expired during the pendency of the petition, the Court still resolved the issues presented to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and the public.
	GR NO. 140338 2007-08-07	REPUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS v. JOSE L. SANTIAGO TINGA, J.
While there were occasions[29] when the Court passed upon issues although supervening events had rendered those petitions moot and academic, the instant case does not fall under the exceptional cases. In those cases, the Court was persuaded to resolve moot and academic issues to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar.