Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 178989 2010-03-18	EAGLE RIDGE GOLF v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Evidently, the Rules requires the petitioner, not his counsel, to sign under oath the requisite certification against non-forum shopping. Such certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance to the court that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues, and cause of action.[32]
	GR No. 156287 2010-02-16	FELICITAS M. MACHADO v. RICARDO L. GATDULA BRION, J.
On March 19, 1971, Executive Order No. 305 was issued reconstituting the PACLAP. The committee was given exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving public lands and other lands of the public domain,[18] and was likewise vested with adjudicatory powers phrased in broad terms:1. To investigate, coordinate, and resolve expeditiously land disputes, streamline administrative proceedings, and, in general, to adopt bold and decisive measures to solve problems involving public lands and lands of the public domain.[19] [emphasis supplied] Thereafter, Presidential Decree No. 832 (PD 832)[20] was issued on November 27, 1975 reorganizing the PACLAP and enlarging its functions and duties. The decree also granted PACLAP quasi-judicial functions. Section 2 of PD 832 states:
	GR NO. 157029 2005-12-15	JIMMY KENT RAMBUYON v. FIESTA BRANDS QUISUMBING, J.
In the cases of United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems[16] and Docena v. Lapesura,[17] we held that the certification of non-forum shopping should be signed by all of the petitioners in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.
	GR No. 168056 2005-09-01	CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the argument of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to the principle of republicanism, the same deserves scant consideration. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is to simply execute the legislative policy. That Congress chose to do so in such a manner is not within the province of the Court to inquire into, its task being to interpret the law.[59]
	GR NO. 141523 2005-06-08	DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS TINGA, J.
COSLAP was created on September 21, 1979 by virtue of E.O. No. 561. Its forerunner was the Presidential Action Committee on Land Problems (PACLAP) founded on July 31, 1970 pursuant to E.O. No. 251. As originally conceived, the committee was tasked "to expedite and coordinate the investigation and resolution of land disputes, streamline and shorten administrative procedures, adopt bold and decisive measures to solve land problems, and/or recommend other solutions." It was given the power to issue subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum and to call upon any department, office, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations and local government units, for assistance in the performance of its functions. At that time, the PACLAP did not exercise quasi-judicial functions.[27]
	GR NO. 141523 2005-06-08	DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS TINGA, J.
Another overriding point. In United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,[38] the Court observed that by reason of the ambiguous terminology employed in E.O. No. 561, the power to assume jurisdiction granted to the COSLAP provides an ideal breeding ground for forum-shopping.[39] There is forum-shopping when the actions involve the same transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances.[40]
	GR No. 155609 2005-01-17	ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE v. ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION PANGANIBAN, J.
First, the judiciary merely applies what the law is, not what it should be.[19] Section 5(2) of Republic Act (RA) 6728 allows a tuition fee increase only under the condition that at least 70 percent of the increase shall be disbursed as salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits for teaching and nonteaching personnel. The law imposes this requirement without exceptions or qualifications:"2) x x x tuition fees under subparagraph (c) may be increased, on the condition that seventy percent (70%) x x x of the tuition fee increases shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel x x x. At least 20% shall go to the improvement or modernization of buildings, equipment, libraries, laboratories, gymnasia and similar facilities and to the payment of other costs of operation. For this purpose, schools shall maintain a separate record of accounts for all assistance received from the government, any tuition fee increase, and the detailed disposition and use thereof, which record shall be made available for periodic inspection x x x." (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 151136 2004-05-27	SPS. GAVINO C. GUDOY AND VIOLETA M. GUDOY v. JACINTA S. GUADALQUIVER QUISUMBING, J.
However, respondents maintain that the complaint is defective as to form because all the petitioners are required to sign the complaint's certification on non-forum shopping. Respondents cite the cases of United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems[4] and Docena v. Lapesura, [5] where we held that the certification on non-forum shopping should be signed by all of the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and that the signing by only one of them is insufficient.