Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BATELEC II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. v. ENERGY INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATION BUREAU

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172960 2010-03-26	MACTAN ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION CORONA, J.
In Batelec II Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Energy Industry Administration Bureau (EIAB), et al.,[37] the Court further reiterated that the DOE had regulatory authority over matters involving the marketing and distribution of energy resources.
	GR NO. 129165 2006-10-30	SPS. RODRIGO COLOSO AND ELISA COLOSO v. SECRETARY ERNESTO V. GARILAO VELASCO, JR., J.
We also held that courts usually accord great respect to the technical findings of administrative agencies like the DAR especially as to matters in their fields of expertise; "x x x courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies."[27]
	GR NO. 155058 2006-09-26	PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no question then that Annexes "A", "B" and "C" are mere xerox copies of certified true copies of the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution. As the use of such xerox copies contravene paragraph 3 of Administrative Circular No. 3-96, it rendered the Petition insufficient in form.[31] The CA committed no error in rejecting said attachments and dismissing the Petition.
	GR NO. 148247 2006-08-07	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. ENRICO E. ZAMORA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party seeking it must strictly observe the requirements for its issuance.[24] Some of these requirements are found in paragraph 2, Section 1 of Rule 65, which reads:SECTION. 1. Petition for certiorari.
	GR NO. 142848 2006-06-30	EUGENE C. YU v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the issue of failure of the prosecution to present the sworn statement and memorandum of agreement between the private respondents and the DOJ, there is no requirement under Republic Act No. 6891 that the same be first presented in court before an accused may be admitted to the WPSBP. Moreover, the DOJ which is tasked to implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981, has determined that the private respondents have satisfied the requirements for admission under the WPSBP. This interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 by the DOJ deserves the respect of the court under the principle that the determination of a government agency tasked to implement a statute is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts.[18]
	GR NO. 167806 2006-06-26	PHIL PHARMAWEALTH v. PHILIPPINE CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER BIDS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Batelec II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Energy Industry Administration Bureau (EIAB),[5] this Court held The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities to accord them the prior opportunity to decide controversies within their competence before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is presumed that an administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. Hence, premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner. We are aware of instances when resort to administrative remedies may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately, among which are: 1) when the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is involved; and 9) in quo warranto proceedings.[6] However, petitioner failed to satisfactorily show that the instant case falls among the recognized exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.