Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for libel against respondents. No. The traditional grant of judicial power is found in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that the power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.” The set up embodied in the Constitution and statutes characterize the resolution of electoral contests as essentially an exercise of judicial power.
In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.
Petitioners also contend that the two-year extension period that may be granted by the Secretary of Health for the phasing out of commercial blood banks pursuant to Section 7 of the Act constrained the Secretary to legislate, thus constituting undue delegation of legislative power.
Hence, complainants charged respondent Sheriff with excess of and grave abuse of authority, usurpation of power, and conduct most prejudicial to the best interest of service.” This may be summarized as follows: (1) He endeavored to execute a judgment that is not yet final and executory; (2) He levied on the entire property and not on the undivided portion pertaining to complainants; (3) He levied on property worth more than millions of pesos” to satisfy the P23,600.00 money claim; and (4) He failed to properly publish the Notice of Auction Sale.
It is worth mentioning that the MSU Code of Governance provides that (n) payment of salary shall be effected unless approved by the Board of Regents.” 13 Considering that private respondent was paid her corresponding salary and benefits for almost two (2) years from her appointment as Executive …