Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 202877 2015-12-09	NARRA NICKEL MINING v. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is a fundamental rule that the question of jurisdiction may be tackled motu proprio on appeal even if none of the parties raised the same.[38] The reason for the rule is that a court without jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment.[39]
	GR No. 183678 2010-03-15	RENE VENTENILLA PUSE v. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner was likewise amply afforded administrative due process the essence of which is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [27] The records show that petitioner filed the following: (1) Compliance-Answer to the Complaint; (2) Rejoinder; (3) Position paper; (4) Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the Board of Professional Teachers finding him guilty as charged; and (5) Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He attended the preliminary conference and hearing where he was able to adduce his evidence. With the opportunities he had, he cannot claim he was denied due process.
	GR No. 167711 2008-10-10	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RAMON C. GALICIA REYES, R.T., J.
Principally, the CA held that jurisdiction over public school teachers belonged to the School Superintendent as mandated by R.A. No. 4670.[19]