Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO ESTRADA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 157479 2010-11-24	PHILIP TURNER v. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
Neither did the subsequent existence of unrestricted retained earnings after the filing of the complaint cure the lack of cause of action in Civil Case No. 01-086. The petitioners' right of action could only spring from an existing cause of action. Thus, a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the action.[30] For, only when there is an invasion of primary rights, not before, does the adjective or remedial law become operative.[31] Verily, a premature invocation of the court's intervention renders the complaint without a cause of action and dismissible on such ground.[32] In short, Civil Case No. 01-086, being a groundless suit, should be dismissed.
	GR No. 179918 2010-09-08	SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V. v. EFREN JALOS ABAD, J.
Executive Order 192 (1987) transferred to the PAB the powers and functions of the National Pollution and Control Commission provided in R.A. 3931, as amended by P.D. 984.[11] These empowered the PAB to "[d]etermine the location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects" of water pollution.[12] Among its functions is to "[s]erve as arbitrator for the determination of reparation, or restitution of the damages and losses resulting from pollution." In this regard, the PAB has the power to conduct hearings,[13] impose penalties for violation of P.D. 984,[14] and issue writs of execution to enforce its orders and decisions.[15] The PAB's final decisions may be reviewed by the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.[16]
	GR No. 169228 2009-09-11	ALEXANDRA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CARPIO, J.
The doctrine of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be first made with the administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the controversy may be elevated to a court of justice for review.[11] A premature invocation of a court's intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible.[12]
	GR NO. 154243 2007-03-06	DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ROBERTO LASTIMOSO v. P & SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to the first issue, the respondent rightfully invoked the jurisdiction of the courts without first going through all the administrative remedies because the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies admits of exceptions, such as when the issue involved is a purely legal question.[6] The only issue presented by respondent in his petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC was whether or not the PNP Chief had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by a private citizen against him. Said issue being a purely legal one, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply to the case.
	GR NO. 166753 2005-11-29	ANGELITA MORCAL v. ANTONIO LAVIÑA QUISUMBING, J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be first made to the administrative authorities in cases falling under their jurisdiction to allow them to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their competence. This is because the administrative agency concerned is in the best position to correct any previous error committed in its forum.[9]