Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REBECCA GUTIERREZ v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 172623 2010-03-13	COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS v. CELSO M. PALER CORONA, J.
The petitioner in this case is the Commission on Appointments, a government entity created by the Constitution, and headed by its Chairman.[18] There was no need for the Chairman himself to sign the verification. Its representative, lawyer or any person who personally knew the truth of the facts alleged in the petition could sign the verification.[19] With regard, however, to the certification of non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by counsel.[20] In this case, Atty. Tiu failed to show that he was specifically authorized by the Chairman to sign the certification of non-forum shopping, much less file the petition in his behalf. There is nothing on record to prove such authority. Atty. Tiu did not even bother to controvert Paler's allegation of his lack of authority. This renders the petition dismissible.[21]
	GR No. 173002 2008-07-04	BENJAMIN BAUTISTA v. SHIRLEY G. UNANGST REYES, R.T., J.
In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.[45] For, it is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality, if it be the case, that may result in injustice.[46] The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[47]
	GR No. 146197 2005-09-27	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
(3) the date of receipt of the notice of denial of the motion.[20]
	GR No. 146197 2005-06-27	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
the date of receipt of the notice of the judgment or final order or resolution; the date of filing of the motion for new trial or for reconsideration; and the date of receipt of the notice of denial of the motion.[20] Contrary to the Court of Appeals' findings, Security Bank correctly asserted that page 13 of its petition states the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration on 23 February 1999, or thirteen days after the receipt of the Order.[21] The petition