Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KHRISTINE REA M. REGINO v. PANGASINAN COLLEGES OF SCIENCE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 211362 2015-02-24	CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA PERALTA, J.
In general, no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is that "courts, for reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter complained of, have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum."[74] In the U.S. case of Ringgold v. United States,[75] which was cited by respondents, it was specifically held that in a typical case involving a decision by military authorities, the plaintiff must exhaust his remedies within the military before appealing to the court, the doctrine being designed both to preserve the balance between military and civilian authorities and to conserve judicial resources.
	GR No. 211362 2015-02-24	CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA PERALTA, J.
We have ruled that the school-student relationship is contractual in nature. Once admitted, a student's enrolment is not only semestral in duration but for the entire period he or she is expected to complete it.[111] An institution of learning has an obligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue.[112] Such contract is imbued with public interest because of the high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions.[113]
	GR No. 165569 2010-07-29	UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. DANES B. SANCHEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under Rule 16, Section 1(g) of the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss may be made on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.[25] To clarify the essential test required to sustain dismissal on this ground, we have explained that "[t]he test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition, to constitute a cause of action, is whether admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the petition."[26] Stated otherwise, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for.[27]
	GR NO. 166744 2006-11-02	AC ENTERPRISES v. FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The fundamental test for failure to state a cause of action is whether, admitting the veracity of what appears on the face and within the four corners of the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein?[50] Indeed, the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations.[51] If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be presented by defendants.[52] As the Court emphasized: In determining whether allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.
	GR NO. 160174 2006-08-28	FRANCISCO SILVA AS NEA ADMINISTRATOR v. LEOVIGILDO T. MATIONG CARPIO, J.
On the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court holds that the main issues for resolution in this case are purely legal. Thus, the instant case falls within the recognized exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[38]
	GR NO. 147058 2006-03-10	DAVAO LIGHT v. JUDGE OF RTC DAVAO CITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[25] A complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Assuming the facts that are alleged to be true, the court should be able to render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint.[26]