If the
extension for the filing of pleadings cannot be allowed, it is illogical and
incongruous to admit a pleading that is already filed late. to admit a late
answer is to put a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the
rules seek to redress.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
GUARDIANSHIP:
The distribution of the
residue of the estate of the deceased incompetent is a function pertaining
properly, not to the guardianship proceedings, but to another proceeding in
which the heirs are at liberty to initiate.
Monday, December 22, 2014
APPEALS:
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ACTED IN
SELF-DEFENSE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A QUESTION OF FACT, AND IT IS WELL ENTRENCHED
IN JURISPRUDENCE THAT FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT COMMAND GREAT WEIGHT
AND RESPECT UNLESS PATENT INCONSISTENCIES ARE IGNORED OR WHERE THE CONCLUSIONS
REACHED ARE CLEARLY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
Friday, December 19, 2014
CHANGE OF NAME:
A
person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid
and meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable
or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a
legal consequence such as legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid
confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by
a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to
adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there
is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or
that the change of name would prejudice public interest.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
A
moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy
by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value. The Supreme Court did not desist from
resolving an issue that a supervening event meanwhile rendered moot and
academic if any of the following recognized exceptions obtained, namely: (1)
there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a situation
of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the
constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling principles
to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case was capable of
repetition, yet evading review.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS:
The
48-hour appeal period in habeas corpus demonstrates the adequacy of such remedy
in that no unnecessary time will be wasted before the decision will be
re-evaluated.
Monday, December 15, 2014
CLERICAL ERROR:
No
intent or the part of the lawmakers to remove the authority of the trial courts
to make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry. It can thus be concluded that the local civil registrar has primary, not
exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for correction of clerical errors
and change of first name or nickname, with R.A. No. 9048 prescribing the
procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow. Since
R.A. No. 9048 refers specifically to the administrative summary proceeding
before the local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same
procedure to petitions for the correction of entries in the civil registry
before the courts.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO:
For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must
concur:
"(1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and,
(2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer."
A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto
is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
RECANTATION OF TESTIMONY:
The recantation of private complainants are insufficient to warrant the reversal of accused’s conviction. Recantations are frowned upon by the courts. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. It is also a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimony solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witness who gave it later changed his mind for one reason or another. This will make a mockery of solemn trials and put the investigation of crimes at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.
Monday, December 8, 2014
DEAF-MUTE WITNESS:
A
deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and
appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are
going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a
qualified interpreter. (People vs.
Hayag, 101 SCRA 67). Thus, in People vs. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539 and People
vs. Sasota, 52 Phil. 281, the accused was convicted on the basis of the
testimony of a deaf-mute. Although in People vs. Bustos, 51 Phil 389, the testimony of a
deaf-mute was rejected, this was because there were times during his testimony
that the interpreter could not make out what the witness meant by the signs she
used.
Friday, December 5, 2014
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION:
Custodial interrogation
means any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person
is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant manner.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
HEARSAY:
Section
36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal
knowledge; otherwise, their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay
Since the witnesses merely attested to the voluntariness and due execution of
the respective extrajudicial confessions of the accused, insofar as the
substance of those confessions is concerned, the testimonies of the police
witnesses are mere hearsay.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES:
In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and
convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly
by substantial evidence, in that order.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
FORECLOSURE AND WRIT OF POSSESSION:
It is settled that questions regarding the validity
of a mortgage or its foreclosure as well as the sale of the property covered by
the mortgage cannot be raised as ground to deny the issuance of a writ of
possession. Any such questions must be determined in a subsequent proceeding. x x x x If
the mortgagor failed to redeem the mortgage within the reglementary period,
entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right and the
issuance thereof is merely a ministerial function.
The
judge to whom an application for a writ of possession is filed need not look
into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. Until the
foreclosure sale is annulled, the issuance of the writ of possession is
ministerial. In fact, even during the
period of redemption, the purchaser is entitled as of right to a
writ of possession provided a bond is posted to indemnify the debtor in case
the foreclosure sale is shown to have been conducted without complying with
the requirements of the law. More so when, as in the present case, the
redemption period has expired and ownership is vested in the purchaser. x x x The
defaulting mortgagor is not without any expedient remedy, however. For under Section 8 of Act 3135, as amended by Act
4118, it can file with the court which issues the writ of possession a petition for cancellation of the writ
within 30 days after the purchaser-mortgagee was given possession. IN FINE, it would be a grievous error for
QC-RTC, Branch 77 to deny petitioners motion for the issuance of a writ of
possession.
Monday, December 1, 2014
SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS:
All
cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estate of
deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or
appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or the
aggregate value of the property shall be under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Shari’a District Courts.
Friday, November 28, 2014
WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT:
Where
there is wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover actual
damages even without proof that the attachment plaintiff acted in bad faith in
obtaining the attachment. However, if it is alleged and established that the
attachment was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment defendant
may recover moral damages and exemplary damages as well. Either way, the
wrongfulness of the attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages
to the attachment defendant; the latter must first discharge the burden of
proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury incurred by reason of the
wrongful attachment.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
The Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its
rules in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding. The rules can be suspended on the following
grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of
special or compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause
not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought
is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
PARTITION:
Partition is the
separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to
whom it may belong.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
EJECTMENT:
An ejectment case is designed to restore,
through summary proceedings, the physical possession of any land or building to
one who has been illegally deprived of such possession, without prejudice to
the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in
appropriate proceedings. Any ruling on
the question of ownership is only provisional and made for the sole purpose of
determining who is entitled to possession de
facto. Certainly,
a judgment in an ejectment case could only resolve the question as to who has a
better right to possess the subject property but definitely, it could not
conclusively determine whether petitioners are entitled to the award under the
ZIP or ascertain if respondents are disqualified beneficiaries.
Monday, November 24, 2014
JURISDICTION OVER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES:
The Court which grants or issues a provisional
remedy is the court which has jurisdiction over the main action. This includes
an inferior court which may grant a provisional remedy in an action pending
within its jurisdiction. The provisional remedy is applied for and granted by
the court which has jurisdiction over the principal action.
Friday, November 21, 2014
DYING DECLARATION:
As an
exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration or ante
mortem statement is evidence of the highest order and is entitled to
utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation.
In order for a dying declaration to be held admissible, four requisites must concur: first, the declaration must concern
the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; second, at the time the declaration
was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending death;
third, the declarant is competent
as a witness; and fourth, the
declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
parricide, in which the declarant is the victim.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR ESTOPPEL BY LACHES:
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
(131 Phil. 556 (1968), the
party-litigant actively participated in the proceedings before the lower court
and filed pleadings therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after receiving an
adverse Decision on the merits from the appellate court, did the party-litigant
question the lower court’s jurisdiction. Considering the unique facts in that
case, the Supreme Court held that estoppel
by laches had already precluded the party-litigant from raising the
question of lack of jurisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v. People,
G.R. No. 147406, 14 July 2008, 558 SCRA 63, the Supreme Court cautioned
that Tijam must be construed as an exception to the general
rule and applied only in the most exceptional cases whose factual milieu is
similar to that in the latter case.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST:
Under Section 13, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court, "[a] person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Monday, November 17, 2014
DENIALS:
Denial is a self-serving
negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the
declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Like
alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the
positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial cannot
prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who, as in this
case, were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against petitioner.
Friday, November 14, 2014
SWEETHEART DEFENSE:
The sweetheart defense is a much-abused
defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court. Being an affirmative
defense, the invocation of a love affair must be supported by convincing
proof. In this case, apart from his
self-serving assertions, Cabanilla offered no sufficient and convincing
evidence to substantiate his claim that they were lovers.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
INTERPLEADER:
Interpleader is a remedy whereby a person, who has
property in his possession or an obligation to perform, either wholly or
partially, but who claims no interest in the subject, or whose interest, in
whole or in part, is not disputed by others, goes to court and asks that
conflicting claimants to the property or obligation be reduced to litigate
themselves in order to determine finally who’s entitled to the same.
Otherwise stated, a
person against whom conflicting claims are asserted by several claimants over
the same subject matter, but who claims no interest whatever therein, may bring
an action for interpleader against the several claimants to compel them to
interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. (Section 1, Rule 62)
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
PROBATE PROCEEDING:
The
authority of the probate court is limited to ascertaining whether the testator,
being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law. Thus, petitioner’s claim of title to the
properties forming part of her husband’s estate should be settled in an
ordinary action before the regular courts.
Monday, November 10, 2014
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: THE FOLLOWING ARE THE WELL-RECOGNIZED INSTANCES WHERE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE ALLOWED EVEN WITHOUT A VALID WARRANT:
(1) Warrantless search incidental to
a lawful arrest: (2) [Seizure]
of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence was
inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are;
c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) "plain view"
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; (3) Search of a moving vehicle.
Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
occupant committed a criminal activity; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop
and Frisk; (7) Exigent and
emergency circumstances; (8) Search
of vessels and aircraft; [and] (9) Inspection
of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
building regulations. x x
x x In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect
a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search
or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of
the articles procured (VALEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, [2009]).
Friday, November 7, 2014
GUARDIANSHIP:
A guardianship is a trust relation of
the most sacred character, in which one person, called a "guardian" acts for another called the "ward" whom the law regards as
incapable of managing his own affairs. A guardianship is designed to further
the ward’s well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the
ward’s property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may personally
require. It has been stated that while custody involves immediate care and
control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities, but those of
one in loco parentis as well. In a guardianship proceeding, a court may appoint a qualified guardian if
the prospective ward is proven to be a minor or an incompetent. A reading
of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that persons who, though
of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes,
are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside
aid are considered as incompetents
who may properly be placed under guardianship. (Oropesa vs. Oropesa [2012]).
Thursday, November 6, 2014
PERSONAL ACTION AND REAL ACTIONS:
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks
the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages. Real actions, on the other hand, are
those affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein (MARCOS-ARANETA VS. CA [2008]).
Friday, October 31, 2014
ADMISSIBILITY OF TAPE RECORDING:
Before
a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given probative value, the
following requisites must first be established, to wit: (1) a
showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) a
showing that the operator of the device was competent; (3) establishment
of the authenticity and correctness of the recording; (4) a
showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) a
showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) identification
of the speakers; an (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. In one case, it was held that the testimony
of the operator of the recording device as regards its operation, his
method of operating it, the accuracy of the recordings, and the identities of
the persons speaking laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of the
recordings. Likewise, a witness' declaration that the sound
recording represents a true portrayal of the voices contained therein satisfies
the requirement of authentication. The party seeking the introduction in
evidence of a tape recording bears the burden of going forth with sufficient
evidence to show that the recording is an accurate reproduction of the
conversation recorded. These requisites were laid down precisely to address the
criticism of susceptibility to tampering of tape recordings. Thus, it was held
that the establishment of a proper foundation for the admission of a recording
provided adequate assurance that proper safeguards were observed for the
preservation of the recording and for its protection against tampering. (Torralba vs. People [2005]).
https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl
https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl
Thursday, October 30, 2014
ONE-DAY EXAMINATION OF WITNESS RULE:
Par. 5(i) of Supreme Court A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
requires that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only. This rule
shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion during trial on
whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable
reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to
make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness
and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection
thereto. Thereafter, the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence
in open court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of
evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
Friday, October 24, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
the propriety of granting letters testamentary
to respondents, do not fall within any ground which can be the subject of a
direct appeal to thE SUPREME Court UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT. (REPUBLIC VS.
MARCOS II [2009], PERALTA, J.)
JUSTICE PERALTA:
DELAY
IN REPORTING RAPE CASES: Delay in reporting an
incident of rape due to death threats does not affect the credibility of the
complainant, nor can it be taken against her.
The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and
unexplained. BBB explained that she did not immediately report the
abduction, rape and detention of her daughter to the authorities, because Egap
threatened to kill AAA, who was then in his custody. Further, BBB testified
that, on another occasion, Egap threatened to kill her if she dared to
report the matter to the authorities. True enough, when Egap learned that she
did what he forbade her to do, he made good his threat and shot her at the
back. Thus, BBB's delay in reporting the incident for five months should not be
taken against her. (PEOPLE VS. MADSALI [2010], PERALTA,
J.).
JUSTICE PERALTA:
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE: Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an
accused only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that
of guilty (PEOPLE VS. RAMOS [2010], PERALTA, J).
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
FACTUAL
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: The Supreme Court has long adhered to the rule
that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts
and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of
the case. This deference to the trial court’s appreciation of the
facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that
when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is
sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual
findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court (PENTECOSTES, JR. VS. PEOPLE [2010], PERALTA,
J.).
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
EQUIPOISE RULE: Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
equipoise, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the
party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if
the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and
the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not suffice to
produce a conviction.
The
equipoise rule has been generally applied when the parties have already
concluded the presentation of their respective evidence (PEOPLE VS. HON. GABO [2010],
PERALTA, J).
JUSTICE PERALTA:
SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE: In
administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual
administratively liable is substantial evidence. Section 5, Rule 133
of the Rules of Court is explicit, to wit: Sec. 5. Substantial evidence.
– In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
Substantial
evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary
civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs (OMBUDSMAN
VS. ZALDARRIAGA [2010], PERALTA, J).
JUSTICE PERALTA:
PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE: It is a basic rule in evidence that each party to a
case must prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence
required by law. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by preponderance of evidence, or that evidence that is of
greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it. It
does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side
is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of
truth is on one side than on the other (REYES
VS. CENTURY CANNING CORP. [2010], PERALTA,
J.).
Thursday, October 16, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of
general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not
change the nature of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule
108 of the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to
different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition
and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but
nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Summons must,
therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with
jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process
to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so
chooses.
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to
implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the
publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners
in bringing to court all possible interested parties. Such failure was likewise
excused where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections
proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence
of the interested parties; or when a party is inadvertently left out.
It is clear from the foregoing
discussion that when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in
the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations,
including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108
of the Rules of Court is mandated. If the entries in the civil register could
be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not through
appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are
notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open,
the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching. (REPUBLIC vs. DR. UY [2013], PERALTA, J).
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "in cases of
extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of
relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a
willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and
remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the effect of the
mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing
continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted
by the defendant, than to establish a new relation."
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action
or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a
court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also
require the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be
known as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
it must be shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such
right has been violated and the invasion by the other party is material and
substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage.
An injunction will
not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is merely contingent
and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the alleged right
must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of
law. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs.
CA [2013], PERALTA, J).
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
AMENDMENTS: Under Section 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court,
an amended complaint supersedes an original one. As a consequence, the original
complaint is deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record. (Figuracion vs. Libi, G.R. No. 155688,
November 28, 2007) In the present case, the Amended Complaint is, thus,
treated as an entirely new complaint. As such, respondents had every right to
move for the dismissal of the said Amended Complaint. Were it not for the
filing of the said Motion, respondents would not have been able to file a
petition for certiorari before the CA which, in turn, rendered the presently
assailed judgment in their favor. (MERCADO
VS. SPS. ESPINA [2012], PERALTA, J.)
JUSTICE PERALTA:
LACHES SHOULD BE CLEARLY PRESENT FOR THE SIBONGHANOY DOCTRINE TO APPLY BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED INTIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY IS MERELY AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. (Vda. De Herrera vs. Bernardo [2011] PERALTA, J.).
https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl
https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl
JUSTICE PERALTA:
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FIULING
OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI: Concededly,
the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua
non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for
the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the
re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order
is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2)
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity
for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the
interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the
action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of
due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings
in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings
was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is
involved. (i)
where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
involved. (TANG vs. SUBIC BAY
DISTRIBUTION [2010], PERALTA, J).
Monday, October 13, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
TRUST: A trust is the legal relationship between one
person having an equitable ownership of property and another person owning the legal
title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to
the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the
latter. Trusts are either express or implied. Express or direct trusts are created by
the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will,
or by oral declaration in words evincing an intention to create a trust. Implied trusts – also called “trusts by
operation of law,” “indirect trusts” and “involuntary trusts” – arise by legal
implication based on the presumed intention of the parties or on equitable
principles independent of the particular intention of the parties. They are
those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the
transaction as matters of intent or, independently of the particular intention
of the parties, as being inferred from the transaction by operation of law
basically by reason of equity. (ESTATE OF
CABACUNGAN VS. LAIGO [2011],
PERALTA, J.)
Friday, October 10, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
execution of the
certification against forum shopping by the attorney-in-fact is not a
violation of the requirement that the parties must personally sign the same: (MONASTERIO-PE VS. TONG, PERALTA, J.).
Thursday, October 9, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION: The writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages
would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the
jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury,
the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these
conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
It
is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to
prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual,
substantial, anddemonstrable. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ENTERTAINED
THE JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE
AT LARGE.
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY ACCUSED who was present during the
promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the
pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. (Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
133775, January 20, 2000)
A complaint states a cause of action if it
avers the existence of the three essential elements
of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the
defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right.
If the allegations in the
complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina [2012], PERALTA, J.)
Friday, October 3, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors: (1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs. Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).
Thursday, October 2, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Quo Warranto: A quo warranto proceeding is the proper
legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and
to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It
is brought against the person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or
unlawfully held or exercised the public office. It may be brought by the
Republic of the Philippines or by the person claiming to be entitled to such
office. In quo warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his
name must prove that he is entitled to the subject public office. In other
words, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested
position. Otherwise, the person who
holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed. It is not even necessary to pass upon the
right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the
undisturbed possession of his office (Arquero vs. CA [2011], PERALTA, J).
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case: In People v. Hernandez, the Court held that “delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders” must be read in harmony with Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that the “[p]etition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case.” The trial court was then correct and acting well within its discretion when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for postponement mainly because of the pendency of their petition for transfer of venue (MARI & PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011], PERALTA, J).
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
The People may
assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules.
If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely
calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the
constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated. (VILLAREAL
VS. ALIGA, 2014, PERALTA, J.)
Monday, September 29, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
when a complaint is
dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the plaintiff, pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no need to
state in the certificate of non-forum shopping in a subsequent re-filed
complaint the fact of the prior filing and dismissal of the former complaint. (BENEDICTO vs. LACSON
[2010], PERALTA, J.).
https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice
https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice
Saturday, September 27, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
In criminal cases, the grant of demurrer is tantamount
to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would
place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal order is not
subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (PEOPLE
vs. ATIENZA, 2012, PERALTA,
J.).
Thursday, September 25, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
Forum-shopping can be
committed in three ways: (1) by filing
multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is
litis pendentia); (2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and with the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved
(where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) by filing multiple
cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting
of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata). (BORRA
vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J.)
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER: It is a settled
rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations
in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the
defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become
dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. (MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM VS. CULLEN [2013], PERALTA, J.)
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
JUSTICE PERALTA:
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION: For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue,
the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion
of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is
clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the present case, the
right of respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the
prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from the service
meted on government employees or officials is immediately executory in
accordance with the valid rule of execution pending appeal uniformly observed
in administrative disciplinary cases. (OMBUDSMAN
vs. DE CHAVEZ [2013], PERALTA, J).
http://www.mvplaw17.com/node/65
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)