Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for libel against respondents. The Respondents argued that the Minister had not raised an issue of general public importance, that these cases involve the application of the Court’s decision to the facts of these cases. Under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies should be taken to the Court of Appeals.
Consequently, petitioner Espina took his oath and assumed office. You could also bring in lawyers who work on open government laws and rules generally, or on specific issues like policing. Petitioner alleged that its appeal was filed within the 30-day period provided for by Section 27 of the 1994 Rules of Procedure of HLURB.
Plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3773 merely sold to his children, or his successors-in-interest, two portions of the subject property and the latter filed another case for quieting of title ruled upon in a previous final decision. This is because when an administrative rule is merely intepretative in nature its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed.
That is exactly what the ReNUEAL model rules do. In these ‘books’ (mind the word book!) information management is divided not only from making rules (Book II) but aswell from single-case decision-making (Book III). When the Supreme Court, as PET, resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power.
Petitioner Elmer Espina and private respondent Miguel Cotiamco were candidates for director of respondent Leyte IV Electric Cooperative (LEYECO IV), representing the Baybay South District. At the same time, however, the Court of Appeals held that it was premature for the trial court to have ruled that the expropriation suit was not for a public purpose, considering that the parties had not yet rested their respective cases.