There are precedents for
treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case
has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for
the public good. The Supreme Court has also held that a
petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of
executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Friday, June 26, 2015
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
It is an established
doctrine that injunction will not
lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that
criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of
society.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
RES JUDICATA:
the previous final judgment denying a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
bars a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground
of lack of marriage license. both petitions actually have the same cause of
action although founded merely on different grounds. hence, a party cannot
evade or avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying the form of
his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION:
Normally, execution will
issue as a matter of right only (a)
when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor
has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has
lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the
appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the
court of origin. Execution pending
appeal is the exception to the general rule. As such exception, the court’s discretion in
allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of
good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of
compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment
becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or
damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the
judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an
instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity”.
Monday, June 22, 2015
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:
In Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.
153666, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 494, 508-509, the Supreme Court stated that
under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which
must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a
final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said
question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior
to the institution of the criminal action.
Clearly, the civil action must precede
the filing of the criminal action for a Prejudicial Question to exist.
Friday, June 19, 2015
GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH:
Section
3 of Rule 17 enumerates the grounds for the quashal of a complaint or
information, as follows: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute
an offense; (b) That the court
trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has
no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so; (e) That it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form; (f)
That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law; (g)
That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which,
if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the
accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY:
No court can
interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the
injunction.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
ARRAIGNMENT:
Procedural due
process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason
for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and
the corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against him.
It is at this stage that the accused,
for the first time, is given the opportunity to know the precise charge that
confronts him.
Arraignment is indispensable in
bringing the accused to court and in notifying him of the nature and cause of
the accusations against him.
The importance of arraignment is based on the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed.
Monday, June 15, 2015
VICARIOUS APPEAL:
a party's appeal from a judgment will not inure to the benefit of a
co-party who failed to appeal; and as against the latter, the judgment will
continue to run its course until it becomes final and executory. To this general rule, however, one
exception stands out: where both parties have a commonality of interests,
the appeal of one is deemed to be the vicarious appeal of the other.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDER:
The first disposes of the subject
matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving
nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has determined,
but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves
something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with
preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the
judgment rendered. The test to ascertain
whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something
to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it
does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT:
where the
defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying it under
oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document
will be deemed admitted.
Monday, June 8, 2015
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES:
trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring
parties to avail of DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. (A.M. No. 03-1-09-Sc, Pars. I.A. 1.2; 2(E)) (Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing vs. Ley
Construction and Development [2006]).
Friday, June 5, 2015
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE:
The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 34, Rules of Court).
The offer of evidence is necessary
because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of fact and its
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless
and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for
which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of
probative weight.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE:
Under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence “No person may be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.” The above is an adaptation from a similar provision in
Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies only in criminal cases. But those
who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure chose to extend the prohibition to all
kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed against
parents and other direct ascendants or descendants. In Emma Lee vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated that
the person who invokes the filial
privilege rule, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee.
The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to
"direct" ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a
common ancestry. A stepdaughter
has no common ancestry by her stepmother.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
THE BURDEN OF PROOF MAY BE ON THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT:
The party who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it. The burden of proof may be
on the plaintiff or the defendant. It
is on the defendant if he alleges an affirmative defense which is not a denial
of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action, but is one
which, if established, will be a good defense – i.e., an “avoidance” of the claim.
Indeed, “in the final analysis, the party upon whom the ultimate
burden lies is to be determined by the pleadings, not by who is the plaintiff or the defendant.” Burden
of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is
preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative
of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the
burden of proof never parts, though in the course of trial, once the plaintiff
makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of
evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert the plaintiff's prima facie
case; otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff. It is the burden of evidence which shifts
from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of
trial. The term prima facie
evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is
sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts. Prima
facie means it is “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption
unless disproved or rebutted”.
Monday, June 1, 2015
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXECUTION FOR AN AMPARO OR HABEAS CORPUS DECISION:
Since the right to life, liberty and security
of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of
any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of
delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to
immediately protect. The Rules of Court
only find suppletory application in an amparo
proceeding if the Rules strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural
efficacy of the writ. As it is, the
Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the
life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution
is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by
an amparo proceeding. For summary
proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to
further appeals that may be taken therefrom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)