This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| To simplistically assume that the second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the results under such circumstances.[27] | |||||
|
2009-07-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| By virtue of the above law, the CA had jurisdiction to act upon the Petition for Annulment filed by respondent Tayud Golf. The said petition, sufficient in form and substance, left the CA with no other recourse but to act upon it. The well-settled rule is that the nature of an action/petition is determined by the material allegations it contains, irrespective of whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for therein.[43] A close reading of the petition filed by respondent Tayud Golf distinctly indicates that the grounds relied upon were based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, respondent Tayud Golf had no other recourse than to file the said petition. | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In dismissing outright the petition for certiorari, the CA reasoned that since it (petitioner LBP) was assailing the writ of execution issued by respondent Provincial Adjudicator, then its recourse was to file a petition for review under Rule 43[6] of the Revised Rules of Court. Section 1 thereof provides: Sec. 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the … Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657 … Contrary to the ratiocination of the appellate court, however, Rule 43 does not apply to an action to nullify a writ of execution because the same is not a "final order" within the contemplation of the said rule. As this Court fairly recently explained, "a writ of execution is not a final order or resolution, but is issued to carry out the mandate of the court in the enforcement of a final order or a judgment. It is a judicial process to enforce a final order or judgment against the losing party."[7] As such, an order of execution is generally not appealable.[8] | |||||