Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. RAY BURTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 174788 2013-04-11	SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM v. CA SERENO, C.J.
The failure to fulfill the requirements of Rule 65 disallows the CA from taking due course of the Petition;[61] otherwise appeals and motions for reconsideration would be rendered meaningless,[62] as stated time and again by this Court: [I]f resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.[63] x x x.
	GR No. 179628 2013-01-16	MANILA INSURANCE COMPANY v. SPS. ROBERTO AND AIDA AMURAO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In William Golangco Construction Corporation v. Ray Burton Development Corporation,[57] we declared that monetary claims under a construction contract are disputes arising from "differences in interpretation of the contract" because "the matter of ascertaining the duties and obligations of the parties under their contract all involve interpretation of the provisions of the contract."[58] Following our reasoning in that case, we find that the issue of whether respondent-spouses are entitled to collect on the performance bond issued by petitioner is a "dispute arising in the course of the execution and performance of [the CCA] by reason of difference in the interpretation of the contract documents."
	GR NO. 161829 2007-04-13	ARCADIO M. CARANDANG CORONA, J.
All other charges [including those against respondent] are recommended DISMISSED.[4] Pursuant to the above resolution, the Information for perjury[5] was filed against petitioner in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 60, of Mandaluyong City. Presiding Judge Ma. Luisa Quijano thereafter set the case for pre-trial and arraignment.