Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MMDA v. JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177795 2009-06-19	LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A cursory reading of the three issues raised by petitioners herein, would readily reveal that the second one - on whether the RTC erred in holding that petitioners are not entitled to their claim for damages since they failed to prove bad faith on the part of Mayor Perdices - is a question of fact, since it involves an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.[30] Petitioners, therefore, availed themselves of the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal. On this score alone, the present Petition could have been outrightly dismissed. However, the procedural flaws notwithstanding, the Court deems it judicious to take cognizance of the substantive questions herein, if only to put petitioners' mind to rest.[31]
	GR NO. 164664 2006-07-20	CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is inappropriate. It bears stressing that the resolution of respondent Sandiganbayan granting the motion of the Special Prosecutor for leave to withdraw the Information and ordering the case dismissed without prejudice is final because it disposed of the case and terminated the proceedings therein, leaving nothing to be done with it by the court.[33] Thus, the proper remedy is to file a petition for review with this Court under Rule 45 on a question of law. The pertinent provision reads:SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
	GR NO. 163663 2006-06-30	GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE v. JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
We, therefore, hold that the Court of Appeals did not err when it declared the existence of a valid and perfected contract between the Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM. There being a perfected contract, MMDA cannot revoke or renounce the same without the consent of the other. From the moment of perfection, the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage, and law (Article 1315, Civil Code). The contract has the force of law between the parties and they are expected to abide in good faith by their respective contractual commitments, not weasel out of them. Just as nobody can be forced to enter into a contract, in the same manner, once a contract is entered into, no party can renounce it unilaterally or without the consent of the other. It is a general principle of law that no one may be permitted to change his mind or disavow and go back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of the other party. Nonetheless, it has to be repeated that although the contract is a perfected one, it is still ineffective or unimplementable until and unless it is approved by the President.[52] (Emphasis and Underscoring supplied)
	GR NO. 151132 2006-06-22	FIRST BANCORP v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The order of the trial court dismissing the complaint of respondent (plaintiff below) on the ground that it is premature and states no cause of action is final because it terminated the proceedings so that nothing more can be done in the trial court. The order ended the litigation.[22] There are two modes of appeal from a final order of the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction - (1) by writ of error under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court if questions of fact or questions of fact and law are raised or involved; or (2) appeal by certiorari under Section 2(c), Rule 41, in relation to Rule 45, where only questions of law are raised or involved: Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. -
	GR No. 152998 2003-09-23	SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This notwithstanding, we now resolve the substantive issue. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Jancom Environmental Corporation,[12] it was held:With the foregoing disquisition, it would appear unnecessarily to discuss and resolve the substantive issue posed before the Court. However, the procedural flaw notwithstanding, the Court deems it judicious to take cognizance of the substantive question, if only to put petitioner's mind to rest.
	GR No. 149724 2003-08-19	DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT v. DENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Despite the presence of procedural flaws, we find it necessary to address the issues because of the demands of public interest, including the need for stability in the public service and the serious implications this case may cause on the effective administration of the executive department. Although no appeal was made within the reglementary period to appeal, nevertheless, the departure from the general rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal is justified because the execution of the assailed decision would amount to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[13]
	GR No. 151992 2002-09-18	COMELEC v. JUDGE MA. LUISA QUIJANO-PADILLA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
maintains that mandamus may be availed of by private parties to compel public officers to act on a contract entered into pursuant to law. In its Supplemental Comment,[23] PHOTOKINA invites the Court's attention to Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Jancom Environmental Corporation[24] whereby the winning bidder was afforded every right to seek enforcement of its perfected contract with the government. The petition is impressed with merit.