Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 190795 2011-07-06	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) SERENO, J.
In Cooperative Devt. Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Coop., Inc. et al., [24] it was held that the appellate court violated the therein petitioners' right to be heard when it rendered judgment against them without allowing them to file their comment or opposition.
	GR No. 183824 2010-12-08	MYRNA P. ANTONE v. LEO R. BERONILLA PEREZ, J.
In Cooperative Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc.,[43] without requiring the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment on the petition, this Court determined the merits of the case involving a novel issue on the nature and scope of jurisdiction of the Cooperative Development Authority to settle cooperative disputes as well as the battle between two (2) factions concerning the management of the Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (DARBCI) "that inevitably threatens the very existence of one of the country's major cooperatives."[44]
	GR No. 156797 2010-07-06	IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 BERSAMIN, J.
Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause or supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[6] Forum shopping happens when, in the two or more pending cases, there is identity of parties, identity of rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought.[7] Where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, there is forum shopping.[8] For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, there must be: (a) identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.[9]
	GR NO. 164196 2007-06-22	CONSTANTINO T. GUMARU v. QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE PUNO, C.J.
Under the principles of statutory construction, so familiar even to law students, the term "shall" is nothing if not mandatory.[21] (emphases ours) Thus, the Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and agents without a just and valid reason. He should not desist from appearing before the Court even in those cases where his opinions may be inconsistent with the government or any of its agents he is expected to represent.[22] As in the case of fiscals or prosecutors, bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility do not constitute legal and valid excuses for inhibition.[23] Unlike a practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal or prosecutor, or the Solicitor General in the case at bar, cannot refuse to perform his functions without violating his oath of office.[24] Refusal to perform the duty is compellable by a writ of mandamus.[25] On the other hand, government agencies were admonished not to reject the services of the Solicitor General, or otherwise fail or refuse to forward the papers of a case to the OSG for appropriate action.[26] Actions filed in the name of the Republic that are not initiated by the OSG will be summarily dismissed.[27] Moreover, the fee of the lawyer who rendered legal service to the government in lieu of the OSG or the OGCC is the personal liability of the government official who hired his services without the prior written conformity of the OSG or the OGCC, as the case may be.[28] We explained the rationale for the compulsory nature of the OSG's mandate, in this wise:The rationale x x x is not difficult to comprehend. Sound government operations require consistency in legal policies and practices among the instrumentalities of the State. x x x [A]n official learned in the law and skilled in advocacy could best plan and coordinate the strategies and moves of the legal battles of the different arms of the government. Surely, the economy factor, too, must have weighed heavily in arriving at such a decision.
	GR No. 141241 2005-11-22	REPUBLIC v. 'G' HOLDINGS CORONA, J.
Before anything else, we note that the instant petition suffers from a basic infirmity for lack of the requisite imprimatur from the Office of the Solicitor General, hence, it is dismissible on that ground.[5] The general rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and that actions filed in the name of the Republic, or its agencies and instrumentalities for that matter, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, should be summarily dismissed.[6] As an exception to the general rule, the Solicitor General is empowered to "deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their respective offices, brought before the courts and exercise supervision and control over such legal officers with respect to such cases."[7]