POLICE COMMISSION V.

LOOD

The issue in this case is whether or not the lower court erred in holding that respondent was deprived
of due process of law because the Police Commission decided Administrative Case No. 48 even
without stenographic notes taken of the proceedings of the case

The law provides that the proceeding provided for is merely administrative and summary in
character, in line with the principle that "administrative rules of procedure should be construed
liberally in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses."

In this case, Respondent court ruled that the decision of petitioner commission was based on
incomplete records as there was no transcript of the testimonies of witnesses or minutes of the
proceedings before the Board of Investigators and that the commission’s conclusion was without
factual basis and was in violation of administrative due process.
Therefore, no, Respondent court’s ruling against petitioner’s decision and violative of due process.

PHIL MOVIE PICTURES v. PREMIERE

The issue in this case is whether or not Court of Industrial Relations authorize the lay off of workers on the basis of an
ocular inspection without receiving full evidence to determine the cause or motive of such lay-off?

The law provides that Although the Court of Industrial Relations, in the determination of any question or controversy, may adopt
its own rules of procedure and may act according to justice and equity without regard to technicalities, and for that matter is not
bound by any technical rules of evidence (section 20, Commonwealth Act No. 103), this broad grant of power should not be
interpreted to mean that it can ignore or disregard the fundamental requirements of due process in the trials and investigation of
cases brought before it for determination.

In this case, . The ground for the lay-off is the financial losses which respondent was allegedly suffering during the current year
Petitioner opposed the request alleging that the claim of financial losses has no basis in fact it being only an act of retaliation on
the part of respondent for the strike staged by the workers days before in an attempt to harass and intimidate them and weaken
and destroy the union to which they belong.

Therefore, no, it cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental requirements of due process.

PARAISO-ABAN v. CA

Hilario v. Prudente

The issue in this case is whether the doctrine of primary juris applies

The law provides that The

doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a
controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of
special competence. For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of
Agrarian Reform.

In this case the

petitioner filed an action for forcible entry with prayer for preliminary
injunction with the MTC, ruled in favor of P. RTC dismissed the case and ruled
that DAR has jurisdiction over the case.
In and Out Burger v Shewani

The issue in this case is Whether or not the Intellectual Property Office (an administrative body)
have jurisdiction

The law provides that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the IPO Director of Legal
Affairs as stated under Section 10 of the Intellectual Property Code specifically identifies the
functions of the Bureau of Legal Affairs

In this case In-N-Out Burger filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs an administrative complaint
against the Sehwani, Inc. and Benita Frites, Inc. for unfair competition and cancellation of trademark
registration.

Therefore, IPO has the primary jurisdiction over the case

De leon v. Heirs of De leon

The issue in this case is Whether or not the challenged decision was issued with grave abuse of
discretion

The law provides that While there is no disputing the authority of administrative superiors to reverse the
findings of their subordinates, this power must be exercised sparingly and only upon a clear showing of
error. Lacking such flaw, the decision of the lower administrative officials should be sustained.

In this case The Bureau of Lands ruled against Reyes, who appealed to the Ministry of Natural
Resources. The Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs set aside the decision of the Bureau, but was reversed
by the Minister on motion for reconsideration. Private respondents elevated the case to the Office of the
President where they were sustained.

Co. v. Deportation Board

The issue in this case is whether the judiciary may entertain an action for prohibition and habeas
corpus filed against the Deportation Board

The law provides that the remedy should be allowed only in sound discretion of a competent court in a
proper proceeding

In this case Manila Court of First Instance, in a well-written decision, sustained his jurisdiction,
granted the relief sought on the ground that they were Filipinos, and restrained appellant Board from
taking further cognizance of the proceeding.

Therefore, judiciary may entertain an action for prohibition

Simon v. CHR

The issue in this case is WON respondent has jurisdiction over the case
The law provides that, yes, under the Constitution 1987 the powers and functions of the CHR, and it
does not involve jurisdiction over the case at bar.

In this case The extent of the authority and power of the Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") is
again placed into focus in this petition for prohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and
preliminary injunction.

Therefore, CHR has no jurisdiction

Azajar v. Ardalles

The issue in this case is WON whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint
on the ground of prescription of action.

The law provides that dismissal is erroneous. Section 40 of Act 496 expressly provides that no title to
registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. And this Court has repeatedly held that the right of the registered owner to recover possession
of the registered property is equally imprescriptible, since possession is a mere consequence of ownership.

In this case Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Albay dismissing the complaint for
recovery of a parcel of registered land upon a motion to dismiss filed by defendants after plaintiffs had
closed their evidence.

Therefore, the dismissal is erroneous.

De Borja v. Villadolid

The issue in this case is WON de Borja can file a complaint for declatory relief

The law provides an action for declatory relief must be brought before there is a breach of contract or status

In this Case De Borja sought declatory relief whether or not the license requirement applies to him

Therefore, declatory relief cannot be sought

CREBA v. Sec of Agrarian Reform

The issue in this case is WON Sec of DAR has jurisdiction over the lands

The law provides that, Yes, it is clearly stated in the AO 01-02.

In this case Sec of DAR issued DAR A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of
Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses. The said AO embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of
tenurial arrangement and commodity produced and all untitled agricultural lands and agricultural lands
reclassified by LGU into non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988. March 1999

Therefore, DAR has juris over the case

Lucien tan v. liwag

The Issue in this case is WON legality of the arrest and detention of petitioner by the Immigration
Commissioner preparatory to deportation proceedings.

The law provides that it is legal, The requirement of probable cause to be determined by a Judge, does not
extend to deportation proceedings.

In this Case Petitioner Lucien Tran Van Nghia is a French national with temporary address in Sta. Ana,
Manila. Originally admitted to the Philippines on November 1, 1981 as a temporary visitor, his status was
changed to that of an immigrant on November 16, 1984 based on his representation that he is financially
capable and will invest in the Philippines. To date, however, petitioner has not made any investment and has
engaged only in French tutoring and practice of acupressure. chanro bles law lib rary : red nad

Therefore, the arrest and detention is legal.

Pacific Fishing v. Luna

The issue in this case is WON the injunction issued by the respondent is valid

The Law provides that, yes,

We are aware of the fact that up to the present respondent judge has not
gone beyond issuing the above restraining order.

In this case
private respondents, through counsel, filed with the respondent court a complaint for
declaration of rescission and injunction, with ex-parte preliminary injunction

Therefore, the injunction is valid