This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In fine, the order of the OIC-Regional Director was patently null and void. The denial of due process to the petitioner sufficed to cast the impress of nullity on the official act thereby taken. A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally.[83] All the resulting acts were also null and void. Consequently, the EPs awarded to the respondents should be nullified. | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| At the onset, it should be noted that respondent took a procedural misstep, and the view she is advancing is erroneous. The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and functions to represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and the CA, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.[20] The OSG is the law office of the Government.[21] | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC. Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent "the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings." On the other hand, Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City Fiscals, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service," which was the law in force at the time the appeal was filed, provides that the provincial or the city fiscal (now referred to as prosecutor) "shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal ordinances in the courts of such province or city and shall therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal prosecutions."[24] In consonance with the above-quoted provision, it has been held by this Court that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial courts.[25] Since the appeal, in the instant case was made with the RTC of Manila, it is clear that the City Prosecutor or his assistant (in this case, the Assistant City Prosecutor) had authority to file the same. | |||||
|
2011-06-07 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. [7] This rule, however, is not without exceptions. | |||||