Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 214865 2015-08-19	ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
This treats of the Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the April 28, 2014, July 17, 2014[2] and October 10, 2014[3] Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R CR No. 35962, which dismissed petitioner's appeal for her failure to file the required appellant's brief. Said dismissal effectively affirmed her conviction by the trial court of six counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents.
	GR No. 159110 2013-12-10	VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. CITY OF CEBU BERSAMIN, J.
In point is the exercise by the LGU of the City of Cebu of delegated police power. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[23] the Court cogently observed:It bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 179554 2009-12-16	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. TRACKWORKS RAIL TRANSIT ADVERTISING BERSAMIN, J.
It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the dismantling of Trackworks' billboards, signages and other advertising media. MMDA simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy the billboards, signages and other advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[14] Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.,[15] and Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[16] the Court had the occasion to rule that MMDA's powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.[17]
	GR No. 176970 2008-12-08	ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO v. COMELEC BRION, J.
The local government units, on the other hand, are political and corporate units. They are the territorial and political subdivisions of the state.[35] They possess legal personality on the authority of the Constitution and by action of the Legislature. The Constitution defines them as entities that Congress can, by law, create, divide, abolish, merge; or whose boundaries can be altered based on standards again established by both the Constitution and the Legislature.[36] A local government unit's corporate existence begins upon the election and qualification of its chief executive and a majority of the members of its S anggunian.[37]
	GR NO. 165955 2007-08-10	FILINVEST LAND v. FLOOD-AFFECTED HOMEOWNERS OF MERITVILLE ALLIANCE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
(g) Perform other related functions required to achieve the objectives of the MMDA, including the undertaking of delivery of basic services to the local government units, when deemed necessary subject to prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[8] this Court, speaking through then Associate Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato S. Puno, defined "metro-wide services" as those "services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units comprising Metro Manila." These basic "metro-wide services" include: (1) development planning; (2) transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and management; (4) flood control and sewerage management; (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services; (6) health and sanitation, urban protection, and pollution control; and (7) public safety. The "powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system, and administration." The Court then holds that the MMDA is a "development authority." In other words, the MMDA is "an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services" in the Metropolitan Manila area. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[9] these pronouncements were reiterated. Petitioner, therefore, cannot seek relief from the MMDA as its services only involve laying down policies and coordination with other agencies relative to its primary functions.
	GR NO. 166501 2006-11-16	ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO v. BAYANI F. FERNANDO CARPIO, J.
On the Flag Scheme's alleged lack of legal basis, we note that all the cities and municipalities within the MMDA's jurisdiction,[7] except Valenzuela City, have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances or traffic management codes with provisions for pedestrian regulation. Such fact serves as sufficient basis for respondents' implementation of schemes, or ways and means, to enforce the anti-jaywalking ordinances and similar regulations. After all, the MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations enacted by proper authorities.[8] The absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela City does not detract from this conclusion absent any proof that respondents implemented the Flag Scheme in that city.
	GR NO. 145328 2006-03-23	EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Lest we be misconstrued, this decision does not undermine the purpose of the NAPOCOR project which is aimed towards the common good of the people. But, is the promotion of the general welfare at loggerheads with the preservation of the rule of law? We submit that it is not.[26]
	GR NO. 130230 2005-04-15	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DANTE O. GARIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[14] we categorically stated that Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let alone legislative power, and that all its functions are administrative in nature.