Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INTEGRATED BAR OF PHILIPPINES v. MANILA MAYOR JOSE 'LITO' ATIENZA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165146 2015-08-12	SECURITIES v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION JARDELEZA, J.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[65] In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness - save when, among others, a compelling constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet evading judicial review.[66]
	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Subsequent jurisprudence have upheld Batas Pambansa No. 880 as a valid content-neutral regulation. In the 2006 case of Bayan v. Ermita,[244] this court discussed how Batas Pambansa No. 880 does not prohibit assemblies but simply regulates their time, place, and manner.[245] In 2010, this court found in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza[246] that respondent Mayor Atienza committed grave abuse of discretion when he modified the rally permit by changing the venue from Mendiola Bridge to Plaza Miranda without first affording petitioners the opportunity to be heard.[247]
	GR No. 193065 2012-02-27	DEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CA MENDOZA, J.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness. However, even in cases where supervening events had made the cases moot, this Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public. Moreover, as an exception to the rule on mootness, the courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition, yet evading review.[18]
	GR Nos. 192147 & 192149 2011-08-23	RENALD F. VILANDO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL MENDOZA, J.
Citizenship, being a continuing requirement for Members of the House of Representatives, however, may be questioned at anytime.[11] For this reason, the Court deems it appropriate to resolve the petition on the merits. This position finds support in the rule that courts will decide a question, otherwise moot and academic, if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."[12] The question on Limkaichong's citizenship is likely to recur if she would run again, as she did run, for public office, hence, capable of repetition.
	GR No. 182677 2010-08-03	JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA CARPIO MORALES, J.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[24]