Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GERARDO F. RIVERA v. EDGARDO ESPIRITU

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 182065 2009-10-27	EVELYN ONGSUCO v. MARIANO M. MALONES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For a writ of prohibition, the requisites are: (1) the impugned act must be that of a "tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions"; and (2) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[35]
	GR No. 172013 2009-10-02	PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INCORPORATED PERALTA, J.
To be sure, in Rivera v. Espiritu,[22] after Philippine Airlines (PAL) and PAL Employees Association (PALEA) entered into an agreement, which includes the provision to suspend the PAL-PALEA CBA for 10 years, several employees questioned its validity via a petition for certiorari directly to the Supreme Court. They said that the suspension was unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. Petitioners submit that the suspension was inordinately long, way beyond the maximum statutory life of 5 years for a CBA provided for in Article 253-A of the Labor Code. By agreeing to a 10-year suspension, PALEA, in effect, abdicated the workers' constitutional right to bargain for another CBA at the mandated time.
	GR No. 169780 2009-02-16	ALFREDO A. MENDROS v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
Just as settled is the rule that contracts should be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to the different provisions of these contracts.[17] Under Art. 1374[18] of the Civil Code, contracts cannot be construed by parts; stipulations and clauses must be considered in relation to one another to give effect to the whole. The legal effect of a contract is not determined alone by any particular provision disconnected from all others, but from the whole read together.[19]
	GR No. 164242 2008-11-28	DESTILERIA LIMTUACO v. ADVERTISING BOARD OF PHILIPPINES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The acts sought to be prohibited in this case are not the acts of a tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions.[9] What is at contest here is the power and authority of a private organization, composed of several members-organizations, which power and authority were vested to it by its own members. Obviously, prohibition will not lie in this case. The definition and purpose of a writ of prohibition excludes the use of the writ against any person or group of persons acting in a purely private capacity, and the writ will not be issued against private individuals or corporations so acting.[10]
	GR NO. 164561 2006-08-30	CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[17] Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.[18] Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[19] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[20]
	GR NO. 165881 2006-04-19	OSCAR VILLAMARIA v. VS.CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In resolving an issue based on contract, this Court must first examine the contract itself, keeping in mind that when the terms of the agreement are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall prevail.[48] The intention of the contracting parties should be ascertained by looking at the words used to project their intention, that is, all the words, not just a particular word or two or more words standing alone. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[49] The parts and clauses must be interpreted in relation to one another to give effect to the whole. The legal effect of a contract is to be determined from the whole read together.[50]
	GR No. 158874 2004-11-10	MAYOR SOBAIDA T. BALINDONG OF MUNICIPALITY OF TAGOLOAN v. VICE GOVERNOR TIMOTEO D. DACALOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essential requisites for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[15]