In contemplation of law, it is non-existent.
Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it
is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a
void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. Accordingly, a void
judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any
obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it
have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final, and any writ of execution
based on it is void: “x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be
treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it
exhibits its head.”
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
The value of the
opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether
a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in
pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape
notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
CERTIORARI RULE 64 COA AND COMELEC:
Only when the COA has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, may the Court entertain and grant a petition for
certiorari brought to assail its actions. Section 1 of Rule 65, Rules of Court,
demands that the petitioner must show that, one, the tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and, two, there is neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or
nullifying the proceeding. Inasmuch as the sole office of the writ of
certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the
commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the
petitioner should establish that the COA gravely abused its discretion. The
abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or
quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or
board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined
or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical
manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of
the writ.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
ADOPTION STRICTLY BETWEEN ADOPTER AND ADOPTED:
If adopting parent should die before adopted child, the latter cannot
represent the adopter in the inheritance from the parents and ascendants of the
adopter. Adopted child is not related to the deceased in that case because
filiation created by fiction of law is exclusive between adopted and adopter.
By adoption, the adopters can make for themselves an heir but they cannot make
one for their relatives.
Friday, February 13, 2015
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
An
extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required
in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in
criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil
cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence
used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of
extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our
jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice,
now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed
"clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting
bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but
higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove
by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and
will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
72–HOUR TRO:
Section
5, Rule 58 of the Rules permits the executive judge to issue a TRO ex parte,
effective for 72 hours, in case of extreme urgency to avoid grave injustice
and irreparable injury. Then, after the lapse of the 72 hours, the Presiding
Judge to whom the case was raffled shall then conduct a summary hearing to
determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period. Under the
circumstances, Judge Abul should not be penalized for failing to conduct the
required summary hearing within 72 hours from the issuance of the original TRO.
Though the Rules require the presiding judge to conduct a summary hearing
before the expiration of the 72 hours, it could not, however, be complied with
because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of the trial court from the
parties’ addresses. The importance of notice to all parties concerned is so
basic that it could not be dispensed with. The trial court cannot proceed with
the summary hearing without giving all parties the opportunity to be heard.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
JUDICIAL ADMISSION:
A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the
pleadings; (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. It is
well-settled that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter
who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same,
and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER:
The
purpose of a TRO is to prevent a threatened wrong and to protect the property
or rights involved from further injury, until the issues can be determined
after a hearing on the merits. Under
Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a TRO may be issued
only if it appears from the facts shown by affidavits or by a verified
application that great or irreparable injury would be incurred by an
applicant before the writ of preliminary injunction could be heard.
Monday, February 9, 2015
HABEAS CORPUS IN CUSTODY CASES:
Habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is
withheld from a person entitled thereto. Under Article 211 of the Family Code,
respondent Loran and petitioner Marie Antonette have joint parental authority
over their son and consequently joint custody. Further, although the couple
is separated de facto, the issue of custody has yet to be adjudicated by the
court. In the absence of a judicial grant of custody to one parent, both
parents are still entitled to the custody of their child. (SALIENTES
vs. ABANILLA [2006]).
Friday, February 6, 2015
SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY:
Under Rule 131, Section
3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that “evidence willfully suppressed would
be adverse if produced” does not
apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the
suppression was not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
(d) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this
case. First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena Rowena even
if the prosecution did not present her as a witness. Instead, the
defense failed to call her to the witness stand. Second,
Rowena was certified to be suffering from “Acute Psychotic Depressive
Condition” and thus “cannot stand judicial proceedings yet.” The
non-presentation, therefore, of Rowena was not willful. Third,
in any case, while Rowena was the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact
witnessed the violation committed on her sister. (People vs. Padrigone [2002]).
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
THREE (3) INSTANCES WHEN WARRANTLESS ARREST MAY BE LAWFULLY EFFECTED:
(a) When, in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just
been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) arrest
of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or
temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES:
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor subjected to
stipulation. The right venue must exist
as a matter of law. Thus, for
territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted and
tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the
offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place.
Monday, February 2, 2015
PROBATE OF A WILL:
The Supreme Court, without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the
obligation involved—the production of the original holographic will—is in the
nature of a public or a private duty, ruled that the remedy of mandamus
cannot be availed of by respondent because there lies another plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Let it be noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and that
he seeks the production of the original for purposes of probate. The Rules of
Court, however, does not prevent him from instituting probate proceedings for
the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession or not under
Sections 1 to 5, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. x x x Indeed, the grant of the writ of mandamus lies in the sound
discretion of the court. There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law for the production of the subject will, the remedy of
mandamus cannot be availed of (UY
LIAO ENG vs. LEE [2010]).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)