This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first, the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts which terminates in an order of dismissal or an order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to take the property for the public use or purpose described in the complaint and second, the determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be expropriated.[39] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, We (sic) gravely erred when, despite our being handicapped by the same "lack of substantial evidence", and despite their being beyond Our (sic) competence to pass judgment on, we granted 1,297 claimants the now disputed awards in Our (sic) December 3, 2002 decision.[49] We have likewise observed that, during the prolonged period that this case has been pending, most of the petitioners--the first-time claimants, the Annexes "A" and "C" claimants, and including the Annexes "B," "D" and "E" claimants--already settled their claims with the private respondents. After counter-checking the claimants' names with the list in the dismissal orders issued pursuant to the compromise agreements, the NLRC found and petitioners' counsels even manifested[50] that only 19 complainants had not settled their claims and had, instead, opted to continue with the litigation.[51] | |||||