Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION v. MARIO ABAYARI

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 209672-74 2015-01-14	EDMUND SIA v. WILFREDO ARCENAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As case law defines, a writ of mandamus is a "command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law. It is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, which, as opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done."[46]
	GR No. 203022 2014-12-03	ANTONIO MARTINEZ v. RONALDO B. MARTIN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As case law defines, a writ of mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law. It is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty which, as opposed to a discretionary one, is that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.[20] Being an extraordinary remedy, mandamus is available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration.[21]
	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
It was of no moment that a final and executory decision already validated the claim against the UP. The settlement of the monetary claim was still subject to the primary jurisdiction of the COA despite the final decision of the RTC having already validated the claim.[85] As such, Stern Builders and dela Cruz as the claimants had no alternative except to first seek the approval of the COA of their monetary claim.