This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is noteworthy that the consolidated petitions assail the constitutionality of issuances and resolutions of the DOJ and the Comelec. The general rule is that this Court shall exercise only appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of a statute, treaty or regulation. However, such rule is subject to exception, that is, in circumstances where the Court believes that resolving the issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first instance is of paramount importance and immediately affects the social, economic, and moral well-being of the people.[60] This case falls within the exception. An expeditious resolution of the issues raised in the petitions is necessary. Besides, the Court has entertained a direct resort to the Court without the requisite motion for reconsideration filed below or without exhaustion of administrative remedies where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioners and when there is an alleged violation of due process, as in the present case.[61] We apply the same relaxation of the Rules in the present case and, thus, entertain direct resort to this Court. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Third. While we agree that petitioner failed to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts, which, under ordinary circumstances, warrants the outright dismissal of the case,[42] we opt to relax the rules following the pronouncement in Chua v. Ang,[43] to wit: [I]t must be remembered that [the principle of hierarchy of courts] generally applies to cases involving conflicting factual allegations. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before us as we are not triers of facts.[44] A strict application of this rule may be excused when the reason behind the rule is not present in a case, as in the present case, where the issues are not factual but purely legal. In these types of questions, this Court has the ultimate say so that we merely abbreviate the review process if we, because of the unique circumstances of a case, choose to hear and decide the legal issues outright.[45] | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court was equally explicit in Chua v. Ang,[19] when it pronounced that: x x x The law recognized, too, that subdivision and condominium development involves public interest and welfare and should be brought to a body, like the HLURB, that has technical expertise. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB, on the other hand, is empowered to interpret and apply contracts, and determine the rights of private parties under these contracts. This ancillary power, generally judicial, is now no longer with the regular courts to the extent that the pertinent HLURB laws provide. | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Thus, a strict application of the rule is unnecessary when cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but purely legal questions.[32] | |||||