Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 191672 2014-11-25	DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN BERSAMIN, 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.[27]
	GR No. 191672 2014-11-25	DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN BERSAMIN, J.
In Funa v. Ermita,[33] where petitioner challenged the concurrent appointment of Elena H. Bautista as Undersecretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication and as Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority, the Court reiterated the pronouncement in Civil Liberties Union v. The Executive Secretary on the intent of the Framers on the foregoing provision of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
	GR No. 158150 2014-09-10	AGRIEX CO. v. TITUS B. VILLANUEVA BERSAMIN, J.
We note that a few days after the petitioner instituted the certiorari proceedings in the CA on November 12, 2001, Commissioner Villanueva countermanded Collector Bibit's October 18, 2001 Notice of Sale through his November 19, 2001 memorandum. Thereupon, the October 18, 2001 Notice of Sale could no longer be enforced, thereby rendering the resolution of the validity of the October 18, 2001 Notice of Sale moot and academic. 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.[30]
	GR No. 209287 2014-07-01	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, 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.[41]
	GR Nos. 175279-80 2013-06-05	SUSAN LIM-LUA v. DANILO Y. LUA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In her Comment to Compliance with Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution,[12] petitioner asserted that none of the expenses deducted by respondent may be chargeable as part of the monthly support contemplated by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 84740.
	GR Nos. 175279-80 2013-06-05	SUSAN LIM-LUA v. DANILO Y. LUA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
While there is evidence to the effect that defendant is giving some forms of financial assistance to his two (2) children via their credit cards and paying for their school expenses, the same is, however, devoid of any form of spousal support to the plaintiff, for, at this point in time, while the action for nullity of marriage is still to be heard, it is incumbent upon the defendant, considering the physical and financial condition of the plaintiff and the overwhelming capacity of defendant, to extend support unto the latter. x x x[29] On appeal, while the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 84740 reduced the amount of monthly support fixed by the trial court, it nevertheless held that considering respondent's financial resources, it is but fair and just that he give a monthly support for the sustenance and basic necessities of petitioner and his children. This would imply that any amount respondent seeks to be credited as monthly support should only cover those incurred for sustenance and household expenses.
	GR No. 191644 2013-02-19	DENNIS A.B. FUNA v. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C. AGRA BERSAMIN, J.
In Funa v. Ermita,[5] the Court resolved a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus brought by herein petitioner assailing the constitutionality of the designation of then Undersecretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Maria Elena H. Bautista as concurrently the Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority. The petitioner has adopted here the arguments he advanced in Funa v. Ermita, and he has rested his grounds of challenge mainly on the pronouncements in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary[6] and Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma.[7]
	GR No. 193978 2012-02-28	JELBERT B. GALICTO v. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BRION, J.
A moot 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."[42] "[A]n action is considered 'moot' when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead[,] or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties x x x. Simply stated, there is nothing for the x x x court to resolve as [its] determination x x x has been overtaken by subsequent events."[43]
	GR No. 175241 2010-02-24	INTEGRATED BAR OF PHILIPPINES v. MANILA MAYOR JOSE 'LITO' ATIENZA 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. 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, bar and public. Moreover, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition, yet evading review.[9]