Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NADINE ROSARIO M. MORALES v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 207412 2013-08-07	FLORD NICSON CALAWAG v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES VISAYAS BRION, J.
This necessarily includes the prerogative to establish requirements for graduation, such as the completion of a thesis, and the manner by which this shall be accomplished by their students. The courts may not interfere with their exercise of discretion unless there is a clear showing that they have arbitrarily and capriciously exercised their judgment.[12]
	GR No. 186366 2013-07-03	HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO v. REYNALDO DE BELEN PEREZ, J.
So too are we reminded that procedural rules are intended to ensure the proper administration of law and justice and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid sense, for they are adopted to secure, not override, substantial justice.[23]
	GR NO. 164547 2007-03-28	CGP TRANSPORTATION v. PCI LEASING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Besides, it must be borne in mind that procedural rules are intended to ensure proper administration of law and justice. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice.[26] A deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of the courts.
	GR NO. 156252 2006-06-27	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. CITY OF MANILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondents insist that the instant Petition raises questions of fact that are proscribed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which states that Petitions for Certiorari before the Supreme Court shall raise only questions of law. We do not agree. There is a question of fact when doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[11] A thorough reading of the Petition will reveal that petitioner does not present an issue in which we are called to rule on the truth or falsity of any fact alleged in the case. Furthermore, the resolution of whether or not the court a quo erred in dismissing petitioner's case in light of the enactment of Tax Ordinance No. 8011, allegedly amending Tax Ordinance No. 7988, does not necessitate an incursion into the facts attending the case.
	GR NO. 159828 2006-04-19	KASAPIAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA COCA-COLA -CFW LOCAL 245 v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In dismissing the petition before it, the Court of Appeals opined that the resolution of the validity of the claims of the newly regularized employees would entail a review and re-examination of the factual findings and the re-evaluation of the pieces of evidence which supported the conclusion of the NLRC in the latter's disposition of the instant controversy. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals. The said issue is not a question of fact which will necessitate the appellate court to again examine the evidence. It is, rather, a question of law. There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[7] On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[8]
	GR NO. 153817 2006-03-31	NOLITO D. SOLMAYOR v. ANTONIO L. ARROYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, we must bear in mind that procedural rules are intended to ensure the proper administration of law and justice. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice.[13] A deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.[14] Moreover, we cannot shy away from our constitutionally mandated duty to questions of law set forth in this petition which hinges on the determination of the rights of herein litigants in the light of a very important piece of social legislation, Presidential Decree No. 27, which aims for the equitable distribution and ownership of land, without disregarding the property rights of landowners. Thus, for pragmatic reasons and consideration of justice and equity, the Court must put to rest the issues presented before us.