Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEASTAR MARINE SERVICES v. LUCIO A. BUL-AN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181384 2009-03-13	MACAPANTON B. BATUGAN v. RASAD G. BALINDONG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It must be stressed that certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.[29] A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration is filed, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of denial of said motion.[30] Further, the petition must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution.[31]
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.[71] "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[72]
	GR No. 171153 2007-09-12	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION—PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT v. SAN MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION—PAMBANSANG DIWA NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court emphasizes, however, that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization based on fraud and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration is a serious allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof should be compounded with supporting circumstances and evidence. The records of the case are devoid of such evidence. Furthermore, this Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, such as the BLR, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[36]
	GR NO. 167321 2006-07-31	EPIFANIO SAN JUAN v. JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is for the purpose of determining its timeliness, considering that a petition is required to be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be nullified.[34]
	GR NO. 146550 2006-03-17	FELIPA DELFIN v. PRESENTACION D. BILLONES TINGA, J.
Contrary to the appellate court's illation, respondents have not established possession of the subject properties. Save for the lone testimony of Orlando Buday, a neighbor, that Rosario Degala Daradar was the only one still residing in the properties in dispute, no other evidence was presented to show that respondents are in actual occupation and possession thereof. Not even Rosario herself testified. Doubts also arise as to the veracity of respondents' claim of possession since respondents themselves averred in their complaint that the spouses Delfin had immediately taken possession of the subject properties in the same year that the sale was made, and appropriated the produce found in the subject lots from then on.[39] Admissions made in the complaint are judicial admissions which are binding on the party who made them and cannot be contradicted[40] absent any showing that it was made through palpable mistake. No amount of rationalization can offset such admission.[41] By their very own admissions, it can be inferred that respondents or their predecessors-in-interest did not exercise actual occupancy, as they had ceased to perform acts of dominion over the property upon the sale thereof.