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.).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice

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.)

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

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).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

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).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

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).

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl