Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • I10 Radiowealth Inc vs. Agregado

    Uploaded by

    Sor Elle
    203 views2 pages
    Radiowealth, Inc. sued Agregado after the Supreme Court purchased telecommunication equipment from Radiowealth but payment was refused. The issue was whether the judicial department could make purchases without approval from the executive department. The Supreme Court held that the three departments are co-equal and independent, so the judiciary has the power to do what is necessary to preserve its integrity and effectiveness, including making purchases. Officials cannot deprive courts of what is vital to their functions.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Radiowealth, Inc. sued Agregado after the Supreme Court purchased telecommunication equipment from Radiowealth but payment was refused. The issue was whether the judicial department could make purchases without approval from the executive department. The Supreme Court held that the three departments are co-equal and independent, so the judiciary has the power to do what is necessary to preserve its integrity and effectiveness, including making purchases. Officials cannot deprive courts of what is vital to their functions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    203 views2 pages

    I10 Radiowealth Inc vs. Agregado

    Uploaded by

    Sor Elle
    Radiowealth, Inc. sued Agregado after the Supreme Court purchased telecommunication equipment from Radiowealth but payment was refused. The issue was whether the judicial department could make purchases without approval from the executive department. The Supreme Court held that the three departments are co-equal and independent, so the judiciary has the power to do what is necessary to preserve its integrity and effectiveness, including making purchases. Officials cannot deprive courts of what is vital to their functions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    I10. RADIOWEALTH, INC. VS.

    AGREGADO (1950) FACTS:

    A Webster Teletalk and Webster Telephone Speaker were bought for Pho 585 and installed in the secondand third floor of the Malacanang Annex which houses the Supreme Court The Chairman of the Propert! "e#uisition Committee $appointed b! the President% disappro&ed of thepurchase and its installation in&oking '( )*+ which discontinues open market purchases Petitioners also contend that ,udicial functions do not include purchase of propert! "adiowealth- .nc $&endor% is now re#uesting that the pa!ment be appro&ed howe&erthe Auditor of the SC refused to countersign the warrant for pa!ment

    ISSUE: Whether or not the ,udicial /ept can make purchases without the prior appro&al of the 'xecuti&e0 HELD: 1'S- the! can RD: 2ound in a ruling in Tarlac 3S 4ale

    All three departments are co5e#ual and co5important- each is independent from the other and cannot control or interfere with each other in the exercise of special functions ,udiciar! has the power to maintain its existence and do whate&er is necessar! to preser&e their integrit!- maintain their dignit! and ensure effecti&eness in the administration of 6ustice (fficials of the go&ernment who owe dut! to the court under the law cannot depri&e the courts of an!thing &ital to their functions (fficials and boards are dut!5bound to construct or purchase offices or court rooms and furnish them The! also ha&e to insure that the character of these rooms would permit the court to exercise its functions in a reasonabl! effecti&e manner .n case of conflict to - the court shall o&erpower officials as the! will be ultimate 76udge8 in determining what is necessar! for its efficienc! (fficials ha&e the power to assign a particular room or court room to the court of first instance and change the assignments pro&ided that the new rooms are reasonable ade#uate Courts ha&e the power to refuse dispossession of the room if the! deem that the new room would be inade#uate in the exercise of their duties .f board refuses to furnish the articles mentioned b! law- then the court would ha&e the power either to purchase things directl! or b! proper proceedings to compel the officials to perform their duties to the law

    'xecuti&e does not ha&e power o&er the purchase of books and other office e#uipment needed for the con&enient transaction of its business Court could not maintain its independence and dignit! if it could determine what the courts should ha&e The! are of e#ual footing when it comes to the re#uisition of for fixtures- e#uipment and supplies

    You might also like