Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF ILOILO v. JUDGE EMILIO LEGASPI

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 170432 2008-03-24	AMOS P. FRANCIA v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN CORONA, J.
Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration.[11] The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession.[12]
	GR NO. 169453 2006-12-06	CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION v. PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Upon compliance with the requirements, a petitioner in an expropriation case, in this case respondent, is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of possession. No hearing is required[48] and the court neither exercises its discretion or judgment in determining the amount of the provisional value of the properties to be expropriated as the legislature has fixed the amount under Section 4 of R.A. 8974.
	GR NO. 166429 2005-12-19	REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON TINGA, J.
Neither are we convinced that the motu proprio issuance of the 4 January 2005 Order, without the benefit of notice or hearing, sufficiently evinces bias on the part of Hon. Gingoyon. The motu proprio amendment by a court of an erroneous order previously issued may be sanctioned depending on the circumstances, in line with the long-recognized principle that every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.[76] Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court further recognizes the inherent power of courts "to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice,"[77] a power which Hon. Gingoyon noted in his 10 January 2005 Omnibus Order.[78] This inherent power includes the right of the court to reverse itself, especially when in its honest opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment, and that to adhere to its decision will cause injustice to a party litigant.[79]