Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
1
Carmen filed a complaint for unlawful detainment. Mirallosa claimed
that Carmel has no cause of action against him under the doctrine of
operative fact and he should not be prejudiced by Tuason case case
because he was not a party to the case.
Issue:
Held:
2
CAPALLA vs. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 201112
June 13, 2012
Facts:
3
exercise of the option without competitive public bidding contravene
the provisions of RA 9184; and that the COMELEC purchased the
machines in contravention of the standards laid down in RA 9369. On
the other hand, respondent argue on the validity of the subject
transaction based on the grounds that there is no prohibition either in
the contract or provision of law for it to extend the option period; that
the OTP is not an independent contract itself, but is a provision
contained in the valid and existing AES contract that had already
satisfied the public bidding requirements of RA 9184; and that
exercising the option was most advantageous of the COMELEC.
Issue:
Held:
4
It is a basic rule in the interpretation of contracts that an
instrument must be construed as to give effect to all the provision of
the contract. In essence, the contract must read as a whole. While the
contract specifically required the Comelec to notify the Smartmatic-
TIM of its OTP the subjects goods unitl December 31, 2010, a reading
of the other provision of the AES contract would should that the
parties are given the right to amend the contract which may include
the period within which to exercise the option. Also, there is no
prohibition on the extension of the period, privided that the contract is
still effective.
5
DE JESUS vs. AQUINO
G.R. NO. 164662
February 18, 2013
Facts:
Issues:
6
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the
decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Held:
7
REPUBLIC vs. RAMBUYONG
G.R. NO. 167810
October 04, 2010
Facts:
On May 20, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
It ruled that if ever there has been an erroneous interpretation of the
law, the same may be attributed to a mere error of judgment which is
definitely not the same as "grave abuse of discretion."
8
The motion for reconsideration of NPC was denied. Hence, the present
petition.
Issue:
Held:
9
LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP) vs. THE
SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
G.R. No. 164987
April 24, 2012
Facts:
Issue:
10
Held:
The Court does not lose sight of the presumption of the validity
accorded to statutory acts of Congress. The presumption is that the
legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible, just law, and onw which
operates no further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific
purpose of law.
11
VICENCIO vs. VILLAR
G.R. No. 182069
July 3, 2012
Facts:
Issue:
12
Held:
13
GONZALES III vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
G.R. No. 182069
September 04, 2012
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
16
effective immediately, even as the Office of the Ombudsman is
directed to proceed with the investigation in connection with the above
case against petitioner. Hence, decision of the Office of the President is
hereby reversed.
17
GAMBOA vs TEVES
G.R. No. 176579
June 28, 2011
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the
Constitution refers to the total common shares of PLDT.
Held:
No. However, if the preferred shares also have the right to vote
in the election of directors, then the term “capital” shall include such
preferred shares because the right to participate in the control or
management of the corporation is exercised through the right to vote
in the election of directors. In short, the term “capital” in Section 11,
Article XII of the constitution refers only to shares of stock that can
vote in the election of directors.
18
“State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.” A broad definition
unjustifiably disregards who owns the all-important voting stock, which
necessarily equates to control of the public utility.
Filipinos hold less than 60 percent of the voting stock, and earn
less than 60 percent of the dividends, of PLDT. This directly
contravenes the express command in Section 11, Article XII of the
Constitution.
19
MACALINTAL vs. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 191618
November 23, 2010
Facts:
Issue:
20
Whether or not the constitution of the PET, composed of the
Members of this Court, is unconstitutional, and violates Section 4,
Article VII and Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Held:
21
STO. TOMAS vs. SALAC
G.R. No. 152642
June 07, 2014
Facts:
22
Strengthen the Regulatory Functions of the POEA) was passed which
repealed Sections 29 and 30 of RA 8042.
23