Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAGASA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 166923 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH v. OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION PERALTA, J.
Jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a case.[9] It is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute.[10] The question as to whether or not the dismissal by the lower court for lack of jurisdiction is proper involves the determination of whether, admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the trial court has jurisdiction over the same in light of the laws governing jurisdiction.[11] As such, jurisdiction is neither a question of fact or of fact and law but a matter of law. For this reason, We have consistently held that a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is a question of law,[12] and have, in fact, affirmed dismissals by the CA of appeals brought to them involving pure questions of law.[13] Considering that only questions of law was raised in this petition, direct resort to this Court is proper.[14]
	GR No. 172438 2012-07-04	METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES MENDOZA, J.
This case was later cited in Badillo v. Court of Appeals,[55] where the Court concluded that the HLURB had jurisdiction over complaints for annulment of title. The Court also held that courts will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion, such as that of the HLURB, the sole regulatory body for housing and land development. It was further pointed out that the extent to which an administrative agency may exercise its powers depends on the provisions of the statute creating such agency.
	GR No. 185668 2011-12-13	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. CA REYES, J.
That the remedy of a Petition for Review on Certiorari was no longer available to PAGCOR at the time of filing of this petition is of no moment. Again, we emphasize that certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for lost appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.[26] The special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse.[27]
	GR No. 186487 2011-08-15	ROSITO BAGUNU v. SPS. FRANCISCO AGGABAO AND ROSENDA ACERIT BRION, J.
After the DENR assumed jurisdiction over Lot 322, pursuant to its mandate, the RTC must defer the exercise of its jurisdiction on related issues on the same matter properly within its jurisdiction,[33] such as the distinct cause of action for reformation of contracts involving the same property. Note that the contracts refer to the same property, identified as "Lot 322," - which the DENR Regional Office, DENR Secretary and the CA found to actually pertain to Lot 258. When an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its jurisdiction since the law does not sanction a split of jurisdiction[34]
	GR No. 187751 2010-11-22	EDNA EUGENIO v. STA. MONICA RIVERSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Upon conferment of quasi-judicial functions to an administrative agency, all controversies relating to the subject matter which pertain to its specialization are deemed included within its jurisdiction.[8] Since the HLURB is vested by law with jurisdiction to regulate and supervise homeowner associations, respondent correctly lodged their complaint with the HLURB. Republic Act No. 8763[9] provides: Section 26. Powers over Homeowners Associations. - The powers authorities and responsibilities vested in the Corporation (formerly Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation) with respect to homeowners association under Republic Act No. 580, as amended by executive Order No. 535[10] is hereby transferred to the Housing and Land use Regulatory Board (HLURB). (underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 181956 2010-11-11	VICTORIA L. TEH v. NATIVIDAD TEH TAN NACHURA, J.
The Court reiterates that a special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse.[42] The general rule is that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party.[43] It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal,[44] especially if the party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.[45]
	GR No. 175803 2009-12-04	GOVERNOR ORLANDO A. FUA v. COA PERALTA, J.
In addition, Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, provides that the remedy of certiorari may only be availed of if "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In Badillo v. Court of Appeals,[9] it was held that: x x x "the special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse." It lies only where there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[10]