This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In her original Petition before this Court, petitioner contends that "even granting for the sake of argument but without conceding that the 'newly discovered evidence' of Respondent Tan were admissible, it merely established the fact that Petitioner is an American citizen which does not translate to her not being a Filipino."[14] Yet, in her present Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner begs the indulgence of this Court for the belated submission of her Identification Certificate recognizing her as a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to the provisions and implementing regulations of R.A. 9225.[15] | |||||
|
2011-03-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have held that mere reiteration of issues already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma. What is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules.[38] Indeed, in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof.[39] | |||||
|
2011-03-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| First, as already stated, there was no legal bar to the proclamation of Gonzalez as the winning candidate on May 12, 2010 since the May 8, 2010 Resolution at that time had not yet become final; in fact Gonzalez received a copy thereof only on May 11, 2010. We have held that the five-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 19, Section 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure should be counted from the receipt of the decision, resolution, order, or ruling of the COMELEC Division.[50] With his filing of a motion for reconsideration within the three-day period provided in Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8696, the execution of the said resolution was effectively suspended. | |||||
|
2010-10-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| To buttress our finding that the COMELEC used personal and subjective assessment standards instead of the standards prescribed by law, we cited Coquilla v. COMELEC,[40] which characterized the term residence as referring to "domicile" or legal residence, that is "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)."[18] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, Velasco could not have registered as a regular voter because he did not possess the residency requirement of one-year stay in the Philippines and six-months stay in the municipality where he proposed to vote at the time of the election. The records show that he arrived in the Philippines only on September 14, 2006 and applied for registration on October 13 of that year[20] for the election to be held in May of the following year (2007). To hark back and compare his case to a similar case, Coquilla v. COMELEC,[21] Velasco, before acquiring his dual citizenship status, was an American citizen who had lost his residency and domiciliary status in the Philippines; whose sojourn in the Philippines was via a visitor's visa; and who never established permanent residence in the Philippines. Like Coquilla before him, Velasco could not have therefore validly registered as a regular voter eight months before the May 2007 local elections. | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, dims in light of the importance of the constitutional issues raised by the petitioner. In Tañada vs. Angara,[7] the Court held: In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not | |||||