Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOVENAL OUANO v. PGTT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 194994 2013-04-16	EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO v. EMERSON S. CARLOS SERENO, J.
A direct invocation of this Court's jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition.[19] The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding of the Court's docket.[20]
	GR No. 183926 2010-03-29	GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE v. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE NACHURA, J.
In her Reply to respondent's Comment,[26] petitioner prayed that this Court decide the case on the merits. To do so, however, would require the examination by this Court of the probative value of the evidence presented, taking into account the fact that the RTC failed to adjudicate this controversy on the merits. This, unfortunately, we cannot do. It thus becomes exceedingly clear that the filing of the case directly with this Court ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy sought cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and by immemorial tradition.[27]
	GR No. 183357 2010-03-15	HONORIO BERNARDO v. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO VILLEGAS PEREZ, J.
Significantly, the Technical Report on Verification Survey[25] by Engineer Robert C. Pangyarihan, which was attached to and formed part of the records, contained a tax declaration[26] indicating that the subject property has an assessed value of P110,220.00. It is basic that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency.[27] Under Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC in fact has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
	GR NO. 124512 2006-06-27	MA. ROSARIO SUAREZ v. JUDGE MARTIN S. VILLARAMA TINGA, J.
Moreover, the filing of the case directly with this Court runs afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition.[14] Thus, a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision involving both questions of fact and law must first be brought before the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 141393 2006-04-19	CATHERINE A. YEE v. ESTRELLITA P. BERNABE AZCUNA, J.
In Ouano v. PGTT Int'l. Corp.,[21] the policy was restated in this wise:We need to reiterate, for the guidance of petitioner, that this Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA), as in the present case, and with the RTCs in proper cases within their respective regions. However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. The hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum for such petitions. Thus, petitions for the issuance of such extraordinary writs against the first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA. A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is the established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon this Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of its docket. x x x
	GR NO. 143951 2005-10-25	NORMA MANGALIAG v. EDELWINA CATUBIG-PASTORAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that generally a direct recourse to this Court is highly improper, for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts. Although this Court, the RTCs and the Court of Appeals (CA) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition.[13]
	GR NO. 160384 2005-04-29	HILARIO v. ALLAN T. SALVADOR CALLEJO, SR., J.
Even a cursory reading of the complaint will show that it does not contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the property subject of the complaint.[21] The court cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands.[22] Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot thus be determined whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners' action.