Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 217656 -

G.R. No. 217656 -

Cited Laws

RA 7279RA 7279,RA 8974RA 8974,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prayer for the dismissal of this case is denied. SO ORDERED . [24] (Emphasis in the original) The Department of Public Works and Highways sought reconsideration, but this was denied in the Regional Trial Court's June 30, 2011 Order. [25] Thus, it filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prayer for the dismissal of this case is denied. SO ORDERED . [24] (Emphasis in the original) The Department of Public Works and Highways sought reconsideration, but this was denied in the Regional Trial Court's June 30, 2011 Order. [25] Thus, it filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. [26] In its March 19, 2015 Decision, [27] the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's findings. It held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it relied on the Memorandum of Agreement in denying the prayer for the case's dismissal. [28] It disposed: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Orders of respondent Judge Alexander S. Balut of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.