Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MOLDEX REALTY v. HOUSING

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
It is noteworthy that the consolidated petitions assail the constitutionality of issuances and resolutions of the DOJ and the Comelec. The general rule is that this Court shall exercise only appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of a statute, treaty or regulation. However, such rule is subject to exception, that is, in circumstances where the Court believes that resolving the issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first instance is of paramount importance and immediately affects the social, economic, and moral well-being of the people.[60] This case falls within the exception. An expeditious resolution of the issues raised in the petitions is necessary. Besides, the Court has entertained a direct resort to the Court without the requisite motion for reconsideration filed below or without exhaustion of administrative remedies where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioners and when there is an alleged violation of due process, as in the present case.[61] We apply the same relaxation of the Rules in the present case and, thus, entertain direct resort to this Court.
	GR No. 161718 2011-12-14	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. DING VELAYO SPORTS CENTER LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is no basis for the argument of petitioner that the validity of its administrative orders cannot be collaterally attacked. To the contrary, we have previously declared that a party may raise the unconstitutionality or invalidity of an administrative regulation on every occasion that said regulation is being enforced.[54] Since it is petitioner which first invoked its administrative orders to justify the increase in lease rentals of respondent, then respondent may raise before the court the invalidity of said administrative orders on the ground of non-publication thereof.
	GR No. 193247 2011-09-14	SERGIO I. CARBONILLA v. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES CARPIO, J.
When an administrative regulation is attacked for being unconstitutional or invalid, a party may raise its unconstitutionality or invalidity on every occasion that the regulation is being enforced. For the Court to exercise its power of judicial review, the party assailing the regulation must show that the question of constitutionality has been raised at the earliest opportunity. This requisite should not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised immediately after the execution of the state action complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later. A contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to promptly file a case to challenge the same.[38]
	GR No. 177131 2011-06-07	BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It thus appears that the BSP may be regarded as both a "government controlled corporation with an original charter" and as an "instrumentality" of the Government within the meaning of Article IX (B) (2) (1) of the Constitution. x x x. [55] (Emphases supplied.)
	GR NO. 169276 2009-06-16	DIONISIA MONIS LAGUNILLA v. ANDREA MONIS VELASCO NACHURA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.[25] It is a condition sine qua non to the exercise of judicial power.[26] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[27] Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain finality.[28] One who is not a party to a case is not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process.[29] That is why the case is generally remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.[30]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review of the acts of its co-equals, such as the Congress, it does so only when these conditions obtain: (1) that there is an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination;[47] (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper party[48] and at the earliest opportunity;[49] and (3) that the constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case,[50] otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground.[51]