Documents.mx Remedial Law Digests 1

7/23/2019 Documents.mx Remedial Law Digests 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/documentsmx-remedial-law-digests-1 1/53

Remedial Law Digests 1

JURISDICTION

JUAN V. PEOPLE

18 Jan.2000

Facts: A et al., were charged before the RT with an election offense !"nishable b#im!risonment not e$ceeding % #ears. The# arg"ed that the RT has no &"risdiction o'er their cases since the !enalt# for the offense charged does not e$ceed % #ears.

Issue: (hether )T or RT has &"risdiction

Held: RT has &"risdiction. *"rs"ant to +ec.2 -* 12, as amended b# +ection 2 of RA/%1, the &"risdiction of firstle'el co"rts the )eT, )T, and )T does not co'er thosecriminal cases which b# s!ecific !ro'isions of law are cogniable b# the RT, regardless of the !enalt# !rescribed therefore.

PHIL. VETERANS BANK V. CA18 Jan. 2000

Facts: *s land was ta3en b# DAR !"rs"ant to the om!rehensi'e Agrarian Reform Law. *contended that DAR ad&"dicators ha'e no &"risdiction to determine the &"st com!ensationfor the ta3ing of lands "nder AR* beca"se s"ch &"risdiction is 'ested in the RT.

Issue: (hether the DAR or RT has &"risdiction

Held: DAR has &"risdiction. There is nothing contradictor# between the DARs !rimar# &"risdiction o'er 4agrarian reform matters5 and e$cl"si'e original &"risdiction o'er 4all mattersin'ol'ing the im!lementation of agrarian reform,5 which incl"des the determination of 6"estions of &"st com!ensation, and the RTs 4original and e$cl"si'e &"risdiction5 o'er all!etitions for the determination of &"st com!ensation to the landowner. 7n accordance withsettled !rinci!les of administrati'e law, !rimar# &"risdiction is 'ested in the DAR as anadministrati'e agenc# to determine in a !reliminar# manner the reasonable com!ensationto be !aid for the lands ta3en "nder AR*, b"t s"ch determination is s"b&ect to challenge inthe co"rts.

DUCAT V. CA20 Jan. 2000

Facts: D lost in a ci'il case. There was alread# e$ec"tion of &"dgment. The trial co"rtdenied his )otion to Ann"l the $ec"tion +ale, )otion to Reconsider, and )otion to 9old in

Abe#ance the 7m!lementation of the (rit of *ossession. 7nstead of filing a !etition for certiorari, D !resented before the trial co"rt a )anifestation and )otion to +et *arameters



of om!"tation. The trial then iss"ed an Alias (rit of *ossession against D which he6"estioned.

Issue: (hether D can 'alidl# 6"estion the co"rts a"thorit# to iss"e the writ

Held: o. 7t is too late for D to 6"estion the s"b&ect order of the co"rt. D co"ld ha'e ta3enreco"rse to the A b"t he did not. 7nstead, he manifested ac6"iescence to the said order b#see3ing !arameters before the trial co"rt. 7f the !arties ac6"iesced in s"bmitting an iss"e for determination b# the trial co"rt, the# are esto!!ed from 6"estioning the &"risdiction of thesame co"rt to !as "!on the iss"e.

LLORENTE V. ANDIGANBAYAN1 Jan. 2000

Facts: A, a ma#or, was charged before the +andiganba#an with 'iolation of RA 01.*ending the case, ongress enacted RA //;, limiting the &"risdiction of the

+andiganba#an. A then contended that b# 'irt"e of RA //;, the +andiganba#an lost &"risdiction o'er his case.

Issue: (hether the +andiganba#an was di'ested of &"risdiction

Held: o. To determine whether the official is within the e$cl"si'e &"risdiction of the+andiganba#an, reference sho"ld be made to RA %/;8 and the 7nde$ of <cc"!ational+er'ices, !osition Titles, and +alar# =rades. A m"nici!al ma#or is classified "nder +alar#=rade 2/. Th"s, the case against A is within the e$cl"si'e &"risdiction of the+andiganba#an.

AR!UE" V. COELEC2; A"g. 1

Facts: D won in the +> elections. * filed an election !rotest before the )T. D assailed the &"risdiction of the )T o'er the case.

Issue: (hether the )T has &"risdiction

Held: ?es. An# contest relating to the election of +> members @incl"ding the hairman Bwhether !ertaining to their eligibilit# or the manner of their election B is cogniable b# the)Ts, )Ts and )eTs. -efore !roclamation, cases concerning eligibilit# of +> officers

and members are cogniable b# the lection <fficer as !ro'ided in +ec. % of <)LResol"tion o. 282C. After election and !roclamation, the same cases become 6"owarranto cases cogniable b# )Ts, )Ts and )eTs.

SAURA V. SAURA1 +e!t. 1



Facts: * filed a case against D with the +. * also filed a ci'il case for the ann"lment of asale against D before the RT. D filed a motion to dismiss based on lac3 of &"risdiction of the trial co"rt.

Issue: (hether the + or the RT has &"risdiction

Held: The RT has &"risdiction. J"risdiction o'er the s"b&ect matter is conferred b# lawand is determined b# the allegations of the com!laint. J"risdiction of the + is determinedb# a conc"rrence of 2 elements: @1 the stat"s or relationshi! of the !arties and @2 thenat"re of the 6"estion that is the s"b&ect of the contro'ers#. 7 this case, the com!laint for ann"lment of the sale is an ordinar# ci'il action, which is be#ond the limited &"risdiction of the +.

BENAVIDE" V. CA% +e!t. 1

Facts: * filed a forcible entr# case against D. D arg"ed that he owned the !ro!ert#. Ds"rmised that since the iss"e of ownershi! is in'ol'ed and onl# in resol'ing it can the iss"eof !ossession be finall# settled, the )T has no &"risdiction o'er the case.

Issue: (hether the )T retains &"risdiction

Held: ?es. Eollowing -. *. 12, the )T now retains &"risdiction o'er e&ectment casese'en if the 6"estion of !ossession cannot be resol'ed witho"t !assing "!on the iss"e of ownershi! !ro'ided that s"ch iss"e of ownershi! shall be resol'ed onl# for the !"r!ose of determining !ossession.

SANCHE" V. SANDIGANBAYAN/ +e!t. 1

Facts: o"rt martial !roceedings were initiated against A and - for 'iolation of RA 01.The <mb"dsman also filed a similar case against A and - with the +andiganba#an. A and -filed a motion to dismiss arg"ing that the +andiganba#an has no &"risdiction o'er their case.

Issue: (hether the +andiganba#an has &"risdiction

Held: o. 7n 'iew of the enactment of RA //;, a!!ro'ed on 0 )arch 1;, the+andiganba#an 4lost5 its &"risdiction o'er the case !rimaril# beca"se the !"blic officials

charged here were officers of the *hil. Arm# below the ran3 of f"ll colonel. The enactment of RA //; was !recisel# to declog the +andiganba#ans doc3et of 4small fr#5 cases.

ORGANO V. SANDIGANBAYAN +e!t. 1



Facts: A et al. were charged with !l"nder before the +andiganba#an. The# assailed the &"risdiction of the +andiganba#an.

Issue: (hether the +andiganba#an has &"risdiction

Held: o. one of the acc"sed occ"!ied !ositions corres!onding to +alar# =rade 42/5 or higher. The +andiganba#an has no &"risdiction o'er the crime of !l"nder "nless committedb# !"blic officials and em!lo#ees occ"!#ing the !ositions with +alar# =rade 42/5 or higher,in relation to their office @!"rs"ant to RA 82C.

UNION OTORS CORPORATION V. NLRC

1% +*T. 1

Facts: D was *s Assistant to the *resident and Administrati'e and *ersonnel )anager.+he thereafter filed a com!laint for constr"cti'eFillegal dismissal with the LR.

Issue: (hether the LR has &"risdiction o'er Ds case

Held: o. The +, not the LR, has &"risdiction. The records clearl# show that Ds!osition as Assistant to the *resident and *ersonnel and Administrati'e )anager is acor!orate office "nder the b#laws of *. 7t is clear that the charges filed b# D against *arising from her o"ster as a cor!orate officer, is an intracor!orate contro'ers#. Eor the +to ta3e cogniance of a case, the contro'ers# m"st !ertain to an# of the followingrelationshi!s: @a between the cor!oration, !artnershi! or association and the!"blic (b)between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners,members, or officers @c between the cor!oration, !artnershi! or association and the stateso far as its franchise, !ermit, or license to o!erate is concerned and @d among thestoc3holders, !artners, or associates themsel'es. The instant case is a dis!"te between acor!oration and one of its officers. As s"ch, Ds com!laint is s"b&ect to the &"risdiction of the+, and not the LR.

ANGAT V. REPUBLIC

1C +*T.1

Facts: * was a nat"ral born citien who lost his citienshi! b# nat"raliation in the G+. <n)arch 11, 1%, he filed a !etition with the RT to regain his stat"s as a citien of the

*hili!!ines. The co"rt thereafter re!atriated *.

Issue: (hether the RT has &"risdiction o'er re!atriation cases

Held: o. A !etition for re!atriation sho"ld be filed with the +!ecial ommittee onat"raliation and not with the RT which has no &"risdiction thereo'er. The co"rts order was thereb# n"ll and 'oid. The +!ecial ommittee on at"raliation was reacti'ated onJ"ne 8, 1;, hence, when * filed his !etition on )arch 11, 1%, the ommittee



constit"ted !"rs"ant to L<7 o. 2/0 "nder *D o. /2; @a Decree !ro'iding for re!atriationof Eili!ino women who had lost their *hili!!ine citienshi! b# marriage to aliens and of nat"ral born Eili!inos was in !lace.

DELTAVENTURES V.CABATO )arch 2000

Facts: The LR declared D g"ilt# of illegal dismissal and "nfair labor !ractice. A writ of e$ec"tion was iss"ed. D filed with the RT a com!laint for in&"nction and damages. RTiss"ed a TR<. The laborers mo'ed for the dismissal of the ci'il case on the gro"nd of lac3of &"risdiction.

Issue: (hether the RT had &"risdiction

Held: o. The RT has no &"risdiction to act on labor cases or 'ario"s incidents arisingtherefrom, incl"ding the e$ec"tion of decisions, awards or orders. The RT, being a co

e6"al bod# of the LR, has no &"risdiction to iss"e an# restraining order or in&"nction toen&oin the e$ec"tion of an# decision of the latter.

ABBOT VS. HON. APAYOG.R. NO. #$%#&' ('&&&)

Facts* * was charged with a crime before the +andiganba#an. -# 'irt"e of R.A. //;amending *.D. 1%0%, the case was transferred to the RT. * filed a motion to dismiss whichthe RT denied. * filed a !etition for certiorari and !rohibition before the A to re'erse ther"ling of the RT. The +olicitor =eneral filed a omment, raising the !oint that the A waswitho"t &"risdiction to entertain the !etition beca"se &"risdiction was alread# 'ested in the+andiganba#an.

Issue* (hether the +andiganba#an has &"risdiction o'er the !etition for certiorari and!rohibition

Held* ?es. The &"risdiction of the +andiganba#an was e$!anded in RA //; to incl"de!etitions for the iss"ance of writs of mandam"s, !rohibition, certiorari, habeas cor!"s,in&"nction, and other ancillar# writs and !rocesses in aid of its a!!ellate &"risdiction.

SIASOCO VS. NARVASA

$#+ SCRA #%% (#,,,)

Facts* * filed with the trial co"rt a com!laint for s!ecific !erformance against s"bdi'isionde'elo!ers to com!el the latter to e$ec"te deeds of absol"te sale and to deli'er thecertificates of title to b"#ers.

Issue* (hether the trial co"rt has &"risdiction o'er s"ch as a com!laint.



CRIINAL PROCEDURE

BAIL

LAYOLA V. JUDGE GABO2% Jan. 2000

Facts: *olice officers A - were acc"sed of m"rder. J"dge iss"ed an order allowing thehief of *olice to ta3e A - "nder his c"stod# instead of !lacing them in &ail.

Issue: (hether or not the &"dges action is !ro!er

Held: o. )"rder is a ca!ital offense so the &"dge sho"ld ha'e been mindf"l that bailco"ldnt be allowed as a matter of right as !ro'ided in R"le 11C section 2.

TOLENTINO V. CAANO20 Jan. 2000

Facts: A was acc"sed of 'iolating the hild Ab"se Act. The ma$im"m !enalt# for theoffense is recl"sion !er!et"a. The +tate *rosec"tor failed to a!!ear at the bail hearings setb# the co"rt. The &"dge then granted bail.

Issue: (hether the &"dges order granting bail was !ro!er

Held: o. (hen the charge against the acc"sed is for a ca!ital offense, there m"st be ahearing with the !artici!ation of the !rosec"tion and the defense, in order to determine if the

e'idence of g"ilt is strong and whether bail sho"ld therefore be granted. 7n this case, the+tate *rosec"tor was gi'en a n"mber of o!!ort"nities to !resent e'idence b"t he wasremiss in the !erformance of his d"ties. +till, the &"dge sho"ld not ha'e granted bail basedsim!l# on the fail"re of the !rosec"tion to !ro'e that the e'idence of g"ilt is strong b"tsho"ld ha'e endea'ored to determine the e$istence of s"ch e'idence.

CIVIL LIABILITY

SAPIERA V. CA

10 +*T. 1

Facts: The estafa cases filed against A were dismissed d"e to ins"fficienc# of e'idence.

Issue: (hether the dismissal of the criminal cases erased As ci'il liabilit#

Held: o. The dismissal of the criminal cases against !etitioner did not erase her ci'illiabilit# since the dismissal was d"e to ins"fficienc# of e'idence and not from a declarationfrom the co"rt that the fact from which the ci'il action might arise did not e$ist.



COPROISE PROHIBITED

CHUA V. ACAPUGAY1 A"g. 1

Facts: * filed a com!laint against D for illegal encroachment. * li3ewise filed a criminalcom!laint against the it# ngineer for 'iolation of RA 01 and the R*. Later, * and Dentered into a com!romise agreement, which was a!!ro'ed, b# the co"rt. The casebetween * and D was thereafter dismissed.

Issue: (hether the com!romise affected the criminal case against the cit# engineer

Held: o. 7ndeed, the i'il ode not onl# defines and a"thories com!romises @Art. 2028,it in fact enco"rages them in ci'il actions. 9owe'er, the com!romise agreement cannotaffect the charges against the cit# engineer. The law abhors settlement of criminalliabilit#. 9owe'er, in this case, the <mb"dsman did not find !robable ca"se against the cit#engineer so the case was dismissed.

DEURRER TO EVIDENCE

GUTIB V. CA1 A"g. 1

Facts: A, -, , and others were charged with 6"alified theft before the RT. After the!resentation of the e'idence of the !rosec"tion, A and - filed their se!arate dem"rrers tothe e'idence with !rior lea'e of co"rt. The &"dge denied As dem"rrer for lac3 of fact"al andlegal basis b"t granted -s dem"rrer.

Issue: (hether As dem"rrer sho"ld also be granted

Held: ?es. The co"rt, in !assing "!on the s"fficienc# of e'idence raised in a dem"rrer, ismerel# re6"ired to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient e'idence to s"stain theindictment or to s"!!ort a 'erdict of g"ilt. The +"!reme o"rt fo"nd that the !rosec"tionmiserabl# failed to establish b# s"fficient e'idence the e$istence of the crime of 6"alifiedtheft. Th"s, As dem"rrer to the e'idence sho"ld ha'e been granted.

DEPOSITION

PEOPLE V. 0EBB

1/ A"g. 1

Facts: A was acc"sed of ra!e with homicide. D"ring the co"rse of the !roceedings in thetrial co"rt, A filed a )otion to Ta3e Testimon# b# <ral De!osition !ra#ing that he be allowedto ta3e the testimonies of certain !ersons in the Gnited +tates. The trial co"rt denied themotion.

Issue: (hether As motion sho"ld ha'e been granted



Held: o. A de!osition, in 3ee!ing with its nat"re as a mode of disco'er#, sho"ld beta3en before and not d"ring trial. 7n fact, r"les on criminal !racticeK!artic"larl# on thedefense of alibi, which is As main defense in the criminal !roceedings against himKstatesthat when a !erson intends to rel# on s"ch defense, that !erson m"st mo'e for the ta3ing of the de!osition of his witnesses within the time provided for filing a pre-trial motion.

FINAL ORDER

BA1ARES V. BALISING1 )arch 2000

Facts: A, -, , D, and were acc"sed of estafa. The# filed a motion to dismiss. The trialco"rt dismissed the criminal case witho"t !re&"dice. After more than 2 months, !ri'atecom!lainants so"ght the re'i'al of the criminal case. (hen the trial co"rt allowed re'i'al of the case, the acc"sed 6"estioned the order, claiming that the !rior dismissal had alread#become final and e$ec"tor#.

Issue: (hether the said order became final and e$ec"tor#

Held: ?es. An order dismissing a case witho"t !re&"dice is a final order if no motion for reconsideration or a!!eal therefrom is timel# filed. The law grants an aggrie'ed !art# a!eriod of 1; da#s from his recei!t of the decision or order to a!!eal or mo'e to reconsider the same. After the order of dismissal of a case witho"t !re&"dice has become final, andtherefore becomes o"tside the co"rts !ower to amend and modif#, a !art# who wishes toreinstate the case has no other remed# b"t to file a new com!laint.

FORU SHOPPING

PNB2REPUBLIC BANK V. CA10 +e!t. 1

Facts: * as3ed the hel! of the -7 to in'estigate on the "ndeli'ered T-ills. The -7thereafter filed a criminal case before the <ffice of the <mb"dsman against D.+"bse6"entl#, * also filed a com!laint against D with the RT.

Issue: (hether there was for"m sho!!ing

Held: o. A case before the <mb"dsman cannot be considered for !"r!oses ofdetermining if there was for"m sho!!ing. The !ower of the <mb"dsman is onl#in'estigator# in character and its resol"tion cannot constit"te a 'alid and final &"dgmentbeca"se its d"t#, ass"ming it determines that there is an actionable criminal or noncriminalact or omission, is to file the a!!ro!riate case before the +andiganba#an. 7t is not #et 3nownwhether the <mb"dsman wo"ld file a case against the c"l!rits.



I34-56at7-3

VAS!UE" V. CA

1; +*T. 1

Facts: The 7nformation charging A with libel did not set o"t the entire news article as!"blished.

Issue: (hether the defect in the 7nformation can be c"red b# e'idence

Held: ?es. (hile the general r"le is that the 7nformation m"st set o"t the !artic"lar defamator# words 'erbatim and as !"blished and that a statement of their s"bstance isins"fficient, a defect in this regard ma# be c"red b# e'idence. 7n this case, the article was!resented in e'idence, b"t A failed to ob&ect to its introd"ction. 7nstead, he engaged in thetrial of the entire article, not onl# of the !ortions 6"oted in the 7nformation, and so"ght to

!ro'e it to be tr"e. 7n doing so, he wai'ed ob&ection based on the defect in the 7nformation.onse6"entl#, he cannot raise this iss"e at this last stage.

PEOPLE V. ROAN

1C +*T. 1

Facts: A ra!ed H thrice on the same afternoon. 9owe'er, the 7nformation charged him of onl# one act of ra!e.

Issue: (hether A can be con'icted of three acts of ra!e

Held: o. Altho"gh it is not dis!"ted that A had carnal 3nowledge of H thrice on that sameafternoon, since the 7nformation onl# charged A of one act of ra!e, the lower co"rt did noterr in r"ling that A can onl# be held liable for one act of ra!e.

LEGAL PERSONALITY OF PRIVATE COPLAINANT TO FILE A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION

PERE" V. HAGONOY RURAL BANK )arch 2000

Facts: A com!laint for estafa was filed against A, - and . The +ecretar# of J"sticedirected the dismissal of the com!laint. *ri'ate com!lainant * filed a !etition for certiorariwhich was granted b# the A. A, - and 6"estioned the A r"ling.

Issue: (hether * had legal !ersonalit# to assail the dismissal of the criminal case

Held: ?es. 7ndeed, it is onl# the +olicitor =eneral who ma# bring or defend actions onbehalf of the Re!"blic of the *hili!!ines, or re!resent the *eo!le or +tate in criminal



!roceedings !ending in the +"!reme o"rt or the o"rt of A!!eals. 9owe'er, the !ri'ateoffended !art# retains the right to bring a s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari in his own nameincriminal !roceedings, before the co"rts of law, on the gro"nd of gra'e ab"se of discretionamo"nting to lac3 or e$cess of &"risdiction.

OTION TO !UASH DOINGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN20 Jan. 2000

Facts: A was acc"sed of 'iolating RA 10 before the +andiganba#an. A filed a motion to6"ash on the gro"nd that the facts charged do not constit"te an offense. 9is motion wasdenied.

Issue: (hether the information sho"ld be 6"ashed

Held: o. A motion to 6"ash on the gro"nd that the allegations do not constit"te the

offense charged sho"ld be resol'ed on the basis of the allegations alone whose tr"th and'eracit# are h#!otheticall# admitted. 7n this case, the facts alleged in the informationconstit"te a 'iolation of RA 01 so the motion to 6"ash m"st fail.

PEOPLE V. LOPE"1 A"g. 1

Facts: A was con'icted of Do"ble )"rder with Er"strated )"rder. A a!!ealed, sa#ing thatthe information filed against him was formall# defecti'e, as it charged more than oneoffense in 'iolation of R"le 110 +ec. 1.

7ss"e: (hether the &"dgment sho"ld be re'ersed in 'iew of the defecti'e information

Held: o. 7ndeed, the information is formall# defecti'e for it charged more than oneoffense. 9owe'er, beca"se of his fail"re to file a motion to 6"ash, A is deemed to ha'ewai'ed ob&ection based on the gro"nd of d"!licit#. The +"!reme o"rt merel# modified the

&"dgment finding that A sho"ld be held liable for three se!arate crimes.

ARTINE" V. PEOPLE20 A"g. 1

Facts: A was charged with mal'ersation of !"blic f"nds before the +andiganba#an. A fileda motion to 6"ash the information against him alleging that the facts charged do notconstit"te an offense. The +andiganba#an denied the motion to 6"ash 4for ob'io"s lac3 of merit.5 A then filed a !etition for certiorari.

Issue: (hether A too3 the !ro!er reco"rse



Held: o. The +andiganba#an correctl# denied As motion to 6"ash. Erom s"ch denial, thea!!ro!riate remed# is not a!!eal or re'iew on certiorari. The remed# is for the !etitioner togo to trial on the merits, and if an ad'erse decision is rendered, to a!!eal therefrom in themanner a"thoried b# law.

PO0ER OF SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

JALANDONI V. DRILON2 )arch 2000

Facts: A filed a com!laint for libel against D. The !rosec"tor recommended the indictmentof D so an information for libel was filed with the RT. D a!!ealed to the +ecretar# of J"stice who directed the withdrawal of the com!laint. A so"ght to n"llif# the D<J resol"tion.

Issue: (hether the +ecretar# of J"stice committed an error

Held: o. The +ecretar# of J"stice has the !ower to re'iew resol"tions or decisions of

!ro'incial or cit# !rosec"tors or the hief +tate *rosec"tor "!on !etition b# a !ro!er !art#.Gnder the Re'ised Administrati'e ode, the secretar# of &"stice e$ercises the !ower of direst control and s"!er'ision o'er said !rosec"tors. 9e ma# th"s affirm, n"llif#, re'erse or modif# their r"lings, as he ma# deem fit.

PRELIINARY INVESTIGATION

PEOPLE V. ARLEE2; Jan. 2000

Facts: A was acc"sed of ra!ing H. A contended that he was de!ri'ed of the right to a!reliminar# in'estigation since he was not able to recei'e the s"b!oenas sent to him.

Issue: (hether or not A was de!ri'ed of his right to !reliminar# in'estigation

Held: o. The !resence of the acc"sed is not a condition sine 6"a non to the 'alidit# of !reliminar# in'estigation. *"rs"ant to R"le 112 section @d, a !reliminar# in'estigation wasact"all# cond"cted and the *rosec"tor fo"nd a !rima facie case. A also a!!lied for bail and'ol"ntaril# s"bmitted himself for arraignment, thereb# effecti'el# wai'ing his right to a!reliminar# in'estigation.

LIANG V. PEOPLE' Ja3. '&&&

Facts: A was charged before the )etro!olitan Trial o"rt @)eT with 2 co"nts of gra'eoral defamation. A was arrested. 9e contended that he was denied the right to !reliminar#in'estigation.

Issue: (hether a !reliminar# in'estigation sho"ld be gi'en



Held: o. *reliminar# in'estigation is not a matter of right in cases cogniable b# the)eT. -eing !"rel# a stat"tor# right, !reliminar# in'estigation ma# be in'o3ed onl# whens!ecificall# granted b# law. -esides, the absence of !reliminar# in'estigation does not affectthe co"rts &"risdiction nor does it im!air the 'alidit# of the information.

0RIT OF INJUNCTION 8PROHIBITION

DOINGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN20 Jan. 2000

Facts: A was acc"sed of 'iolating RA 10 before the +andiganba#an. A wished to en&ointhe criminal !roceedings against him.

Issue: (hether granting a writ of in&"nction or !rohibition to sta# a criminal !roceedingwo"ld be !ro!er

Held: o. (rits of in&"nction and !rohibition will not lie to restrain a criminal !rosec"tionbeca"se !"blic interest re6"ires that criminal acts be immediatel# in'estigated and!rosec"ted for the !rotection of societ#. The writ ma# iss"e onl# in s!ecified cases @ e.g., to!re'ent the "se of the strong arm of the law in an o!!ressi'e manner and to affordade6"ate !rotection to constit"tional rights. +"ch e$ce!tions do not obtain in this case.

VALIDITY OF JUDGENT

PEOPLE V. GARCIA0 A"g. 1

Facts: J"dge D con'icted A of illegal !ossession of !rohibited dr"gs. The decision was

!rom"lgated on 20 Eeb. 1%. J"dge Ds retirement was a!!ro'ed in A!ril 1% b"t theeffecti'el# of the retirement was made retroacti'e to 1% Eeb. 1%. - then assailed hiscon'iction beca"se it was !rom"lgated C da#s after J"dge Ds retirement.

Issue: (hether the decision is 'oid

Held: o. Gnder the R"les on riminal *roced"re, a decision is 'alid and binding onl# if itis !enned and !rom"lgated b# the &"dge d"ring his inc"mbenc#. A &"dgment has legal effectonl# when it is rendered: @a b# a co"rt legall# constit"ted and in act"al e$ercise of &"dicial!owers and @b b# a &"dge legall# a!!ointed, d"l# 6"alified, and act"all# acting either de

&"re or de facto. J"dge D was a de facto &"dge in the act"al e$ercise of his d"ties at the timethe decision was !rom"lgated. +"ch decision is therefore legal and has a 'alid and binding

effect.

A447da97t -4 des7sta3ce

PEOPLE VS. ARANDO ALICANTE



G.R. NO. #'/&':2'/ ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with ra!e committed against his minor da"ghter, H. Hs mother,howe'er, e$ec"ted an affida'it of desistance. The trial co"rt con'icted A of ra!e.

Issue* (hether the affida'it of desistance is a gro"nd for dismissal of a criminal case.

Held* o. A !er"sal of the affida'it of desistance re'eals that while H signed the saiddoc"ment, the intent to !ardon A was onl# on the !art of Hs mother and not H herself.-esides, the o"rt loo3s with disfa'or on affida'its of desistance.

A55a7;36e3t

AR!UERO VS. ENDO"A$#+ SCRA +&$ (#,,,)

Facts* As arraignment was originall# set for A"g"st 1; b"t it was !ost!oned times beforeit was finall# held. <n one occasion, A a!!eared in the sched"led arraignment with newlaw#ers who both as3ed for !ost!onement on the gro"nd that their ser'ices had &"st beenengaged and the# needed time to st"d# the case. The &"dge !ost!oned the arraignment of

A.

Issue* (hether the !ost!onement of the arraignment was !ro!er.

Held* o. The fact that A hired new law#ers to re!resent her does not &"stif# the!ost!onement of the arraignment o'er the strong ob&ection of the !ri'ate !rosec"tor. TheR"les of o"rt !ro'ide that 4whene'er a co"nsel de oficio is assigned b# the o"rt to

defend the acc"sed at the arraignment, he shall be gi'en at least 1 ho"r to cons"lt with theacc"sed as to his !lea before !roceeding with the arraignment.5 There is no reason wh# adifferent r"le sho"ld be a!!lied to a co"nsel de !arte where ser'ices ha'e &"st beenengaged b# the acc"sed. There was absol"tel# no reason wh# co"nsel co"ld not ha'e beenre6"ired to confer with the acc"sed within a shorter !eriod to !re!are for the arraignment.

PEOPLE VS. BONIFACIO DURANGOG.R. NO. #$+%$2$, ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with ra!e. D"ring arraignment, A entered a !lea of not g"ilt#. D"ring

the trial, As defense co"nsel manifested to the co"rt that A wanted to withdrew his earlier!lea of not g"ilt# and s"bstit"te it with a !lea of g"ilt#. <n the basis of the manifestation, Awas rearraigned, and this time A !leaded g"ilt#. After the !rosec"tion had concl"ded its!resentation, the RT rendered a decision finding the acc"sed g"ilt# and sentencing him todeath.

Issue* (hether the RT erred in con'icting A des!ite his im!ro'ident !lea of g"ilt#



Held* ?es. (hen an acc"sed enters a !lea of g"ilt#, the trial co"rt is mandated to see to itthat the e$acting standards laid down b# the r"les therefore are strictl# obser'ed. 7t cannotbe said that when a !erson !leads g"ilt# to a crime there is no chance at all that he co"ld, infact, be innocent. The im!ro'ident !lea, followed b# an abbre'iated !roceeding, with!racticall# no role at all !la#ed b# the defense is &"st too meager to acce!t as being thestandard constit"tional d"e !rocess at wor3 eno"gh to forfeit h"man life.

A55est

PEOPLE VS. DENNIS LEGASPIG.R. NO. ##/&' ('&&&)

Facts* A was illegall# arrested. D"ring arraignment, he entered a !lea of not g"ilt#.

Issue* (hether A 'alidl# wai'ed their right to raise the infirmit# of their arrest.

Held* ?es. G!on entering a !lea of not g"ilt#, A 'alidl# wai'ed his right to raise this infirmit#and assail the legalit# of the arrest. An# ob&ection in'ol'ing a warrant of arrest or the!roced"re in the ac6"isition b# the co"rt of the &"risdiction o'er the !erson of an acc"sedm"st be made before he enters his !lea, otherwise the ob&ection is deemed wai'ed.

Aut-6at7c 5e97e<

GARCIA VS. PEOPLE$# SCRA %$% (#,,,)

Facts* The RT fo"nd A g"ilt# of m"rder and sentenced him to recl"sion !er!et"a. A didnot inter!ose a timel# a!!eal. Th"s, the decision became final. * filed a s!ecial ci'il actionfor mandam"s to com!el the RT to forward the records of the case to the +"!reme o"rtfor a"tomatic re'iew.

Issue* (hether the +"!reme o"rt m"st a"tomaticall# re'iew a trial co"rts decisioncon'icting an acc"sed of a ca!ital offense and sentencing him to recl"sion !er!et"a.

Held* o. 7t is onl# in cases where the !enalt# act"all# im!osed is death that the trial co"rtm"st forward the records of the case to the +"!reme o"rt for a"tomatic re'iew of the

con'iction.

Cust-d7al 739est7;at7-3

PEOPLE VS. EDUARDO PAVILLAREG.R. NO. #',,/& ('&&&)



Facts* A, witho"t the assistance of co"nsel, was identified b# the com!lainant in a !oliceline "! as one of the 3idna!!ers. 9e was s"bse6"entl# fo"nd g"ilt# with 3idna!!ing for ransom.

Issue* (hether the identification made b# the com!lainant in the !olice line"! isinadmissible beca"se A stood "! at the line"! witho"t the assistance of co"nsel.

Held* o. The onstit"tion !rohibits c"stodial in'estigation cond"cted witho"t theassistance of co"nsel. An# e'idence obtained in 'iolation of the constit"tional mandate isinadmissible in e'idence. The !rohibition howe'er, does not e$tend to a !erson in a !oliceline"! beca"se that stage of an in'estigation is not #et a !art of c"stodial in'estigation."stodial in'estigation commences when a !erson is ta3en into c"stod# and is singled o"tas a s"s!ect in the commission of the crime "nder in'estigation and the !olice officersbegin to as3 6"estions on the s"s!ects !artici!ation therein and which tend to elicit anadmission. The stage of the in'estigation wherein a !erson is as3ed to stand in a !oliceline"! is o"tside the mantle of !rotection of the right to co"nsel beca"se it in'ol'es a

general in6"ir# into an "nsol'ed crime and is !"rel# in'estigator# in nat"re.

PEOPLE VS. DENNIS LEGASPIG.R. NO. ##/&' ('&&&)

Facts* The !olice in'ited A for 6"estioning. A was as3ed a single 6"estion at the !olicestation regarding his whereabo"ts on the da# of the crime.

Issue* (hether c"stodial in'estigation occ"rred.

Held* o. A was not #et singled o"t as the !er!etrator of the crime. 9e was merel# in'ited

for 6"estioning. The 6"er# on A was merel# !art of the 4general e$!lorator# stage5.

PEOPLE VS. JIY OBREROG.R. NO. #''#%' ('&&&)

Facts* A is a s"s!ect in a crime. 9e was ta3en for c"stodial in'estigation wherein, with theassistance of Attorne# -., who was also the station commander of the !olice !recinct, hee$ec"ted an e$tra&"dicial confession.

Issue* (hether As right to co"nsel d"ring a c"stodial in'estigation was 'iolated.

Held* ?es. The onstit"tion re6"ires that co"nsel assisting s"s!ects in c"stodialin'estigations be com!etent and inde!endent. 9ere, A was assisted b# Attorne# -., who,tho"gh !res"mabl# com!etent, cannot be considered an 4inde!endent co"nsel5 ascontem!lated b# the law for the reason that he was station commander of the !olice!recinct at the time he assisted A. The inde!endent co"nsel re6"ired b# the onstit"tioncannot be a s!ecial co"nsel, !"blic or !ri'ate !rosec"tor, m"nici!al attorne#, or co"nsel of the !olice whose interest is admittedl# ad'erse to the acc"sed.



Dec7s7-3

PEOPLE VS. DOINADOR ASPIRASG.R. NO. #'#'&$ ('&&&)

FACTS* A was charged with m"rder. Trial ens"ed. J"dge -, who !resided at the trial, was

re!laced b# J"dge . J"dge rendered a decision finding A g"ilt# of m"rder.

ISSUE* (hether the efficac# of the decision is im!aired b# the fact that its writer onl# too3

o'er from a colleag"e who had earlier !resided at the trial.

HELD* o. J"dge , who too3 o'er the case from J"dge - had the f"ll record before him,

incl"ding the transcri!t of stenogra!hic notes, which he st"died. The testimonies of thewitnesses for the !rosec"tion are fo"nd in the transcri!t of stenogra!hic notes ta3en in thecase.

ELIGIO ADRID VS. CAG.R. NO. #$&:$ ('&&&)

Facts* The RT rendered a decision con'icting A of the crime of homicide. The onl#disc"ssion in the decision of the e'idence is in the following sentences: 4Their testimon#con'inced the o"rt. <n the other hand, acc"seds e'idence bears the indicia of fabrication.Defense witnesses from their demeanor, manner of testif#ing and e'asi'e answers were far from credible. Erom the e'idence on record, the o"rt belie'es and so hold that the!rosec"tion has satisfactor# !ro'ed the acc"sed g"ilt# be#ond reasonable do"bt.*rosec"tions witnesses testified in a straightforward manner.

Issue* (hether the RT satisfied the constit"tional standard of clear and distinctartic"lation of the facts and law in its decision

Held* o. The RTs decision, for all its length B 2 !ages B contains no anal#sis of thee'idence of the !arties nor reference to an# legal basis in reaching its concl"sion. 7tcontains nothing more than a s"mmar# of the testimonies of the witnesses of both !arties. 7tdoes not indicate what the trial co"rt fo"nd in the testimonies of the !rosec"tion witnessesto consider the same 4straightforward5.

De6u55e5 t- e97de3ce

RESOSO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN$#, SCRA '$ (#,,,)

Facts* +e'en informations for falsifications of !"blic doc"ment were filed with the+andiganba#an against *. Trial !roceeded. (ith lea'e of co"rt, * filed a Dem"rrer to'idence alleging that b# e'idence !resented b# the !rosec"tion itself the g"ilt of the



acc"sed has not been established be#ond reasonable do"bt, and he is entitled to anac6"ittal. The Dem"rrer to 'idence was denied. * filed a !etition for certitorari with the +,challenging the denial of the dem"rrer.

Issue* (hether the !etition sho"ld be granted

Held* o. * wo"ld ha'e this o"rt re'iew the assessment made b# the +andiganba#an onthe s"fficienc# of the e'idence against him at this time of the trial. +"ch a re'iew cannot besec"red in a !etition for certiorari, !rohibition, and mandam"s which is not a'ailable tocorrect mista3es in the &"dges findings and concl"sions or to c"re erroneo"s concl"sions of law and fact. Altho"gh there ma# be an error of &"dgment in den#ing the dem"rrer toe'idence, this cannot be considered as gra'e ab"se of discretion correctible b# certiorari,as certiorari does not incl"de the correction or e'al"ation of e'idence.

D-u=le >e-?a5d@

PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO AGATG.R. NO. #$&&': ('&&&)

Facts* <n the basis of a 'oid !lea bargaining, the RT rendered a &"dgment con'icting A of the crime of ra!e. Thereafter, the cases were re'i'ed at com!lainants instance on thegro"nd that the !enalt# was too light. Trial ens"ed and the RT con'icted A of ra!e andsentenced him to the !enalt# of death.

Issue* (hether there has been do"ble &eo!ard#.

Held* o. The &"dgment rendered b# the trial co"rt which was based on a 'oid !lea

bargaining is also 'oid ab initio and can not be considered to ha'e attained finalit# for thesim!le reason that a 'oid &"dgment has no legalit# from its ince!tion. Th"s, since the

&"dgment of con'iction rendered against A is 'oid, do"ble &eo!ard# will not lie.

I34-56at7-3

PEOPLE VS. FELIBERTOG.R. NO. #$%#$&2$$ ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with the crime of ra!e. The information alleged that he is theste!father of the 'ictim. The trial co"rt fo"nd him g"ilt# and sentenced him to death.

Issue* (hether the !enalt# im!osed on A is correct.

Held* o. Altho"gh the ra!e of a !erson "nder 18 #ears of age b# the commonlaw s!o"seof the 'ictims mother is !"nishable b# death, this !enalt# cannot be im!osed on A in these



cases beca"se this relationshi! was not what was alleged in the information. (hat wasalleged was that he is the ste!father of the com!lainants.

PEOPLE VS. BENJAIN RA"ONABLEG.R. NO. #'&+ ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with the crime of ra!e. The 7nformation alleged that the offense wascommitted 4sometime in the #ear 18/5. A was con'icted of ra!e. <n a!!eal, he raised theiss"e of a defecti'e information on the gro"nd that it did not state the a!!ro$imate time of the commission of the offense.

Issue* (hether the said ob&ection ma# be made for the first time on a!!eal.

Held* o. 7t behoo'ed the acc"sed to raise the iss"e of a defecti'e information, on thegro"nd that it does not conform s"bstantiall# to the !rescribed form, in a motion to 6"ashsaid information or a motion for bill of !artic"lars. An acc"sed who fails to ta3e this

seasonable ste! will be deemed to ha'e wai'ed the defect in the said information. The onl#defects in an information that are not deemed wai'ed are where no offense is charged, lac3of &"risdiction of the offense charged, e$tinction of the offense or !enalt# and do"ble

&eo!ard#. orollaril#, ob&ections as to matters of form or s"bstance in the information cannotbe made for the first time on a!!eal.

PEOPLE VS. EUSEBIO TRAYAG.R. NO. #',&+' ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with the crime of ra!e. The information did not state the fact of theminorit# of the 'ictim. A was con'icted of ra!e and sentenced to death.

Issue* (hether the !enalt# im!osed on A is correct, considering the fact of the minorit# of the 'ictim was not stated in the 7nformation.

Held* The fact of the minorit# of the 'ictim was not stated in the 7nformation. <nl# therelationshi! of the 'ictim as the da"ghter of the offender was alleged therein. The r"le is thatthe elements of minorit# of the 'ictim and her relationshi! to the offender m"st conc"r. Thefail"re to allege one of these elements !recl"des the im!osition of the death !enalt#.

PEOPLE VS. DOINICO LICANDA

G.R. NO. #$%&% ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with the crime of ra!e. The information did not allege As "se of abladed wea!on in committing ra!e. A was con'icted of ra!e and sentenced to death. <nebasis for the co"rts im!osition of the death !enalt# was As "se of a bladed wea!on incommitting ra!e.



Issue* (hether the !enalt# im!osed on A is correct, considering that the "se of a bladedwea!on b# A was not alleged in the information.

Held* o. As "se of a bladed wea!on in committing ra!e cannot ser'e as basis for theim!osition of the death !enalt#. This circ"mstance, which "nder Art. ;, increases the!enalt# of recl"sion !er!et"a to death, m"st be so alleged in the 7nformation.

PEOPLE VS. ROSENDO ENDE"G.R. NO. #$'+%: ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with ra!e. The com!laint s!ecificall# acc"sed A of ra!e committed4b# means of force.5 The information alleged that the carnal interco"rse was 4against thewill5 or 4witho"t the consent5 of the 'ictim.

Issue* (hether the com!laint !re'ails in case of 'ariance between the 'ictims com!laintand the information in crimes against chastit#.

Held* ?es. 7n case of 'ariance between the 'ictims com!laint and the information in crimesagainst chastit#, the com!laint control. Th"s, the fail"re of the information to state that Ara!ed H 4thro"gh force or intimidation5 is not a fatal omission in this case beca"se thecom!laint alleged the "ltimate fact that A ra!ed H 4b# means of force5. +o, at the o"tset, Aco"ld ha'e readil# ascertained that he was being acc"sed ra!e committed thro"gh force, acharge that s"fficientl# com!lies with Article ;.

PEOPLE VS. PETRONILLO CASTILLOG.R. NO. #$&'&+ ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with ra!e. The information alleged that the crime occ"rred 4sometimein )a# 115.

Issue* (hether the information is too general in terms.

Held* o. The information charges onl# one offense B that committed in )a# 11.7t cannotbe said that A was de!ri'ed of the o!!ort"nit# to !re!are for his defense. 7t is s"fficient if thetime a'erred is near the act"al date as the information of the !rosec"ting officer will !ermit,and since that was done in this case, it was not shown that the time !ro'ed did not s"r!riseor s"bstantiall# !re&"dice the defense. -esides, in a ra!e case, the date or time is not anessential crime and therefore need not be acc"ratel# stated.

-t7-3 t- uas

0ILLIA GARAYGAY VS. PEOPLEG.R. NO. #$++&$ ('&&&)



Facts* The $ec"ti'e J"dge of the RT of )anila iss"ed a search warrant a"thoriing thesearch of As ho"se in La!"La!" it#. -# 'irt"e of the warrant, As ho"se was searched. Afiled in the RT of La!"La!" it# a motion to 6"ash the search warrant and to e$cl"deillegall# seied e'idence.

Issue* (hether the motion to 6"ash sho"ld ha'e been filed with the RT of )anila whichiss"ed the warrant.

Held* o. (hen a search warrant is iss"ed b# one co"rt, if the criminal case b# 'irt"e of thewarrant is raffled off to a branch other than the one which iss"ed the warrant, all incidentsrelating to the 'alidit# of the warrant sho"ld be consolidated with the branch tr#ing thecriminal case.

Plea =a5;a7373;


Facts* A was charged with the crime of ra!e. G!on arraignment, A !leaded g"ilt# b"tbargained for a lesser offense, to which com!lainants mother and the !rosec"tor agreed.

Issue* (hether the !lea bargaining is 'alid.

Held* o. The onl# instance where a !lea bargaining is allowed "nder the R"les is when anacc"sed !leads g"ilt# to a lesser offense. 9ere, A did not !lead to a lesser offense b"t!leaded g"ilt# to the ra!e charges and onl# bargained for a lesser !enalt#. 7n short, he didnot !lea bargain b"t made conditions on the !enalt# to be im!osed.

Plea -4 ;u7lt@

PEOPLE VS. EFREN JABIENG.R. NO. #$$&:2:, ('&&&)

Facts* A was charged with the crime of ra!e. 9e !leaded g"ilt# to the same and did not!resent e'idence for the defense. The RT rendered &"dgment and fo"nd A g"ilt# be#ondreasonable do"bt. 9e was meted the death !enalt#

Issue* (hether the !lea of g"ilt# to a ca!ital offense is 'alid.

Held* ?es. The R"les of o"rt !ro'ide the !roced"re that the trial co"rt sho"ld follow whenan acc"sed !leads g"ilt# to a ca!ital offense. The co"rt shall cond"ct a searching in6"ir#into the 'ol"ntariness and f"ll com!rehension of the conse6"ences of his !lea and re6"irethe !rosec"tion to !ro'e his g"ilt and !recise degree of c"l!abilit#. 9ere, A was neithercoerced nor intimidated in entering his !lea of g"ilt#. E"rthermore, his g"ilt was !ro'ed b#the e'idence !resented b# the !rosec"tion.



P5-cedu5al e55-5s


Facts* <n the basis of a 'oid !lea bargaining, the RT rendered a &"dgment con'icting A of the crime of ra!e. Thereafter, the cases were re'i'ed at com!lainants instance on thegro"nd that the !enalt# was too light. At his rearraignment, A !leaded not g"ilt#. Trialens"ed and the RT con'icted A of ra!e and sentenced him to the !enalt# of death.

Issue* (hether the !roced"ral errors in the first arraignment can be 6"estioned.

Held* o. (hate'er !roced"ral infirmit# in the arraignment of A was rectified when he wasrearraigned and entered a new !lea. A did not 6"estion the !roced"ral errors in the first

arraignment and ha'ing failed to do so, he is deemed to ha'e abandoned his right to6"estion the same and wai'ed the errors in !roced"re.

Sea5c <a55a3ts

KENNETH ROY SAVAGE VS. JUDGE TAYPING.R. NO. #$%'#/ ('&&&)

Facts* * so"ght n"llification of a search warrant iss"ed b# res!ondent co"rt on the gro"ndthat the res!ondent co"rt has no &"risdiction o'er the offense since it was not delegated as

a s!ecial co"rt for 7ntellect"al *ro!ert# Rights @7*R and that the a!!lication for searchwarrant sho"ld ha'e been dismissed since it was not accom!anied b# a certification of nonfor"m sho!!ing.

Issue* (hether the search warrant sho"ld be n"llified on the said gro"nds.

Held* o. The a"thorit# to iss"e search warrants is inherent in all co"rts. Administrati'e<rder o. 11; merel# s!ecified which co"rt co"ld tr# and decide cases in'ol'ing'iolations of 7*R. 7t did not, and co"ld not, 'est e$cl"si'e &"risdiction with regard to allmatters @incl"ding the iss"ance of search warrants and other &"dicial !rocesses in an# oneco"rt. J"risdiction is conferred "!on co"rts b# s"bstanti'e law in this case, -* -lg. 12,

and not b# !roced"ral r"le. (ith res!ect to the lac3 of a certification of nonfor"m sho!!ing, the R"les of o"rtas amended re6"ires s"ch certification onl# from initiator# !leadings, omitting an# mentionof 4a!!lications.5

Sus?e3s7-3 -4 c57673al ?5-ceed73;s



FIRST PRODUCERS HOLDINGS VS. COG.R. NO. #$,:++ ('&&&)

Facts* H filed a criminal com!laint for estafa and !er&"r# against A. 7t a!!ears that A ref"sedto ret"rn certificates of shares owned b# H and e'en e$ec"ted false affida'its of loss des!itethe fact that said certificates are e$isting and remains in his !ossession. D"ring the!endenc# of the case, A filed an action for damages against H and claimed ownershi! o'erthe 6"estioned certificates. A filed a motion for s"s!ension of the criminal case on thegro"nd of a !re&"dicial 6"estion b"t was denied b# the trial co"rt.

Issue* (hether the motion for s"s!ension of the criminal case sho"ld be granted.

Held* o. The !ec"liar circ"mstances of this case clearl# show that it was merel# a !lo# todela# the resol"tion of the criminal case. The criminal action for estafa has been lodged withthe *rosec"tor on )arch 1. ?et, A filed the ci'il case onl# 8 months later. The dilator#character of the strateg# of res!ondent is a!!arent from the fact that he co"ld ha'e raisedthe iss"e of ownershi! in the estafa case. +ignificantl#, the ci'il action for reco'er# of ci'il

liabilit# is im!liedl# instit"ted with the filing of the criminal action. 9ence, A ma# in'o3e alldefenses !ertaining to his ci'il liabilit# in the criminal action. 7n fact, there is no law or r"le!rohibiting him from airing e$ha"sti'el# the 6"estion of ownershi!.

Y-ut4ul O44e3de5

PEOPLE VS. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIOG.R. NO. #'+++& ('&&&)

Facts* *, a #o"thf"l offender, who was 18 #ears and 11 months at the time the crime was

committed, was con'icted and !laced "nder the c"stod# of the D+(D Rehabilitationenter. 7n a Einal Re!ort, the Eield <ffice Director of the D+(D recommended to the o"rtthat his case be dismissed and his c"stod# be transferred to his father for his best welfareand interest.

Issue* (hether the #o"thf"l offender sho"ld be discharged on the basis of the saidrecommendation.

Held* o. The said Einal Re!ort and Recommendation of the D+(D sho"ld be referred tothe RT for its a!!ro$imate action and dis!osition. 7n cases where the D+(D recommendsthe discharge of a #o"thf"l offender, it is the trial co"rt before whom the re!ort and

recommendation is s"b&ect to &"dicial re'iew. Recommendation alone is not s"fficient therelease of a #o"thf"l offender. 7n re'iewing the D+(Ds concl"sions b"t sho"ld see3 o"tconcrete, material and rele'ant facts to confirm that the #o"thf"l offender has indeed beenreformed and is read# to reenter societ# as a !rod"cti'e and lawabiding citien.

SUARY PROCEDURE



LUCAS V. JUDGE FABROS1 Jan. 2000

Facts: The ci'il case in'ol'ing * and D was dismissed for fail"re of * and his co"nsel toa!!ear at the !reliminar# conference. D then com!lained beca"se the &"dge granted *smotion for reconsideration.

Issue: (hether the &"dge was in error when she granted the motion for reconsideration

Held: o. As a r"le, a motion for reconsideration is a !rohibited !leading "nder +ec. 1 of the Re'ised R"les on +"mmar# *roced"re. This r"le, howe'er, a!!lies onl# where the

&"dgment so"ght to be reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. 9ere, the order of dismissal is not a &"dgment on the merits of the case. 9ence, a motion for thereconsideration of s"ch order is not the !rohibited !leading contem!lated "nder +ec. 1 of the r"le on +"mmar# *roced"re.

DON TINO REALTY V. FLORENTINO10 +e!t. 1

Facts: 7n a forcible entr# case, D was not able to file his answer on time. The )Tdisregarded his answer and r"led against him. D a!!ealed the "nfa'orable &"dgment.

Issue: (hether )T sho"ld ha'e admitted Ds answer

Held: o. Eorcible entr# and "nlawf"l detainer cases are s"mmar# !roceedings designedto !ro'ide for an e$!editio"s means of !rotecting act"al !ossession or the right to!ossession of the !ro!ert# in'ol'ed. 7t does not admit of a dela# in the determination

thereof. The )Ts decision was in accordance with the r"le on +"mmar# *roced"re.

IN RE* ADINISTRATIVE ATTER NO. TJ2,,2###11 A"g. 1

Facts: 7n an e&ectment case, Ds co"nsel filed a motion for inter'ention in behalf of Dschildren. * o!!osed the motion beca"se inter'entions are !rohibited "nder +ec. 1 of theR"le on +"mmar# *roced"re. The &"dge too3 C months to decide the !atentl# im!ro!er motion for inter'ention so * filed a lettercom!laint against the &"dge.

Issue: (hether the &"dges actions were e$c"sable

Held: o. onsidering that the motion for inter'ention is !rohibited in cases co'ered b# theRe'ised R"le on +"mmar# *roced"re, the resol"tion of the motion sho"ld not ha'e ta3ens"ch an "nreasonabl# long !eriod. Dela# in the resol'ing motions is ine$c"sable and cannotbe condoned.



VELAYO V. COELEC )arch 2000

Facts: * filed a n"mber of !re!roclamation cases against D. These were dismissed and Dwas !roclaimed winner. * mo'ed for reconsideration witho"t f"rnishing D a co!# of themotion. D was also not f"rnished a co!# of the <rder ele'ating the case to the <)Len banc. The <)L then ann"lled the !roclamation of D.

Issue: (hether the <)L !roceedings were !ro!erl# cond"cted

Held: o. 7t is tr"e that RA /1%% !ro'ides for s"mmar# !roceedings in !re!roclamationcases and does not re6"ire a trialt#!e hearing. e'ertheless, s"mmar# !roceedings cannotbe stretched to mean e$ !arte !roceedings. +"mmar# sim!l# means with dis!atch, with theleast !ossible dela#. -"t altho"gh the !roceedings are s"mmar#, the ad'erse !art# m"st atthe 'er# least be notified so that he can be a!!rised of the nat"re and the !"r!ose of the!roceeding. 7n this case, all the !roceedings were cond"cted witho"t the !artici!ation of D.

These e$ !arte !roceedings offend f"ndamental fairness and are n"ll and 'oid.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

ATTACHENT

GARCIA V. JOOUAD2% Jan. 2000

Facts: reditors of D attached a *ro!ert# <wnershi! ertificate in Ds name. * ob&ected tothe le'# claiming that he merel# lent the certificate to D and that D e$ec"ted a Deed of Transfer in fa'or of * e'en !rior to the attachment.

Issue: (hether there was !ro!er attachment of the shares

Held: ?es. The "nrecorded transfer of shares is in'alid as to the attaching or e$ec"tioncreditors of the assignors. ntr# in the min"tes of the meeting of the -oard of Directorsdoes not constit"te !ro!er recording of the transfer. The transfer m"st be recorded in theboo3s of the cor!oration in order to bind s"bse6"ent attaching or e$ec"tion creditors.

CERTIORARI 8APPEALABBOTT LABORATORIES V. ABBOTT LAB EPLOYEES2% Jan. 2000

Facts: The -"rea" on Labor Relations declared D to be a legitimate labor organiation. *a!!ealed to the +ecretar# of Labor and m!lo#ment.

Issue: (hether a!!eal is the !ro!er remed#



Held: o. The decisions of the -"rea" on Labor Relations on case bro"ght before it ona!!eal from the Regional Director are final and e$ec"tor#. The remed# is to a'ail of thes!ecial ci'il action of certiorari "nder R"le %;. 'en if the !resent action were considered asa !etition for certiorari, it is still timebarred. * filed the !etition after the la!se of more than Cmonths from the notice of &"dgment, clearl# be#ond the %0da# !eriod !ro'ided "nder +ec.C of R"le %;.

CONDO SUITE V. NLRC' Ja3. '&&&Facts: Labor Arbiter dismissed *s com!laint for illegal dismissal. LR re'ersed andordered reinstatement. m!lo#er D filed a !etition for certiorari. 9owe'er, - did not im!"telac3 or e$cess of &"risdiction nor gra'e ab"se of discretion on the !art of LR.

Issue: (hether the !etition for certiorari ma# !ros!er e'en witho"t allegations of lac3 or e$cess of &"risdiction or gra'e ab"se of discretion

Held: o. Resort to a s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari "nder R"le %; is limited to theresol"tion of &"risdictional iss"es, that is, lac3 or e$cess of &"risdiction and gra'e ab"se of discretion. The res!ondent acts witho"t &"risdiction if he does not ha'e the legal !ower todetermine the case. There is e$cess of &"risdiction where the res!ondent, being clothed withthe !ower to determine the case, o'erste!s his a"thorit# as determined b# law. And there isgra'e ab"se of discretion where the res!ondent acts in a ca!ricio"s, whimsical, arbitrar#, or des!otic manner n the e$ercise of his &"dgment as to be e6"i'alent to lac3 of &"risdiction.+ince D neither assailed the &"risdiction of the LR nor attrib"tes gra'e ab"se of discretion, his !etition m"st fail.

SI DEVT. V. RP' Ja3. '&&&Facts: R* filed a com!laint for eminent domain against D for the !"r!ose of e$!ro!riatingDs land. * filed a )otion to Dismiss and trial co"rt granted the motion. R* filed a !etition for certiorari "nder R"le %; instead of filing an a!!eal.

Issue: (hether certiorari is the correct remed#

Held: ?es. 7ndeed, certiorari ma# not be resorted to when a!!eal is a'ailable as a remed#.9owe'er, the o"rt allows the iss"ance of a writ of certiorari when a!!eal does not !ro'idea s!eed# and ade6"ate remed# in the ordinar# co"rse of law. The determination as to what

e$actl# constit"tes a !lain, s!eed#, and ade6"ate remed# rests on &"dicial discretion andde!ends on the !artic"lar circ"mstances of each case. 7n this case, the !"blic interestin'ol'ed and the "rgenc# to !ro'ide medical facilities were eno"gh &"stifications for R*sresort to certiorari.

TANG V. CA## Fe=. '&&&



Facts: *, the administrator of an estate, so"ght to fence 2 lots. D et al. o!!osed theiss"ance of the fencing !ermit claiming that the s"b&ect lots are street lots. 'ent"all#, thefencing !ermit was iss"ed. D et al., the neighboring lot owners filed a !etition for certiorariwith a !ra#er for !reliminar# in&"nction.

Issue: (hether D et al. ma# 'alidl# a'ail of certiorari

Held: o. Altho"gh +ec. 1 of R"le %; !ro'ides that the s!ecial ci'il action of certiorari ma#be a'ailed of b# a 4!erson aggrie'ed5 b# the orders or decisions of a trib"nal, the term4!erson aggrie'ed5 is not to be constr"ed to mean that an# !erson who feels in&"red b# thelower co"rts order or decision can 6"estion the said co"rts dis!osition 'ia certiorari. The4!erson aggrie'ed5 referred to "nder +ec. 1 of R"le %; !ertains to one who was a !art# inthe !roceedings before the lower co"rt. D et al. cannot be considered as 4!ersonsaggrie'ed5 the remed# of certiorari is not a'ailable to them.

CONTEPT

YASAY V. RECTO/ +e!t. 1

Facts: + declared D et al. g"ilt# of contem!t for disobe#ing a TR< that + iss"ed. TheA set aside the order of the +, finding D et al. not g"ilt# of contem!t. + a!!ealed theAs re'ersal.

Issue: (hether the + can 'alidl# a!!eal the As decision

Held: o. (hether ci'il or criminal, contem!t is still a criminal !roceeding and an a!!ealwo"ld not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an e$oneration from, a charge of contem!t.

)oreo'er, the + was rather hast# in asserting its !ower to !"nish for contem!t. Therewas no willf"l disobedience of the +s order since it was shown that the A !re'io"sl#n"llified the TR<.

De37al -4 a -t7-3 t- D7s67ss

PEFIANCO V. ORAL1 Jan. 2000

Facts: D filed a mandam"s and in&"nction case see3ing to en&oin the enforcement of adecision which had alread# become final. * filed a )otion to Dismiss. The &"dge denied themotion witho"t stating the basis wh# *s motion sho"ld be denied.

Issue: (hether the &"dges denial of the motion was !ro!er

Held: o. R"le 1% mandatoril# re6"ires that the resol"tion of a motion to dismiss sho"ldclearl# and distinctl# state the reasons therefor. The r"le !roscribes the common !ractice of !erf"nctoril# den#ing motions to dismiss 4for lac3 of merit.5 The challenged order of the trialco"rt falls short of the re6"irements stated in R"le 1%.



DESISTANCE

ENOJAS V. JUDGE GACOTT1 Jan. 2000

Facts: * filed an administrati'e case against J"dge D. Later on, howe'er, * withdrew hiscom!laint.

Issue: (hether the case sho"ld be dismissed in 'iew of !laintiffs desistance

Held: o. (ithdrawal of a com!laint or s"bse6"ent desistance b# the com!lainant in anadministrati'e case does not necessaril# warrant its dismissal. Desistance cannot di'est theco"rt of its &"risdiction to in'estigate and decide the com!laint against D for !"blic interest isat sta3e.

FORU SHOPPING

CONDO SUITE V. NLRC28 Jan. 2000

Facts: Labor Arbiter dismissed *s com!laint for illegal dismissal. LR re'ersed andordered reinstatement. m!lo#er D filed a !etition for certiorari. The e$ternal legal co"nselof D e$ec"ted the certification against for"m sho!!ing in the !etition.

Issue: (hether there was !ro!er com!liance with the r"le on certification against for"msho!!ing

Held: o. - did not com!l# with the r"le since the certification was im!ro!erl# e$ec"ted b#

the e$ternal legal co"nsel. A certification of nonfor"m sho!!ing m"st be e$ec"ted b# the!etitioner or an# of the !rinci!al !arties and not b# co"nsel "nless clothed with a s!ecial!ower of attorne# to do so.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER AND EECUTION PENDING APPEAL

DIESEL CONSTRUCTION V. JOLLIBEE FOODS28 Jan. 2000

Facts: The trial co"rt r"led that * was entitled to a certain amo"nt to be !aid b# D. -oth!arties a!!ealed. The A directed the RT to iss"e a writ of e$ec"tion "!on *s !osting of

a *10 million bond and to sta# e$ec"tion Ds filing of a s"!ersedeas bond of *1; million.

Issue: (hether a !etition for re'iew "nder R"le C; is the !ro!er remed# to 6"estion theAs resol"tion

Held: o. R"le C; is the !ro!er remed# to 6"estion final &"dgments and not interloc"tor#orders of the A. The assailed resol"tion is an interloc"tor# order. 7nterloc"tor# orders arethose that determine incidental matters which do not to"ch on the merits of the case or !"t



an end to the !roceedings. A !etition for certiorari "nder R"le %; is the !ro!er remed# to6"estion the im!ro'ident order granting e$ec"tion ending a!!eal or a sta# of s"che$ec"tion.

BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION V. CA1 Jan. 2000

Facts: * filed a com!laint for breach of contract, s!ecific !erformance, and collection of as"m of mone# against D. The trial co"rt iss"ed the writ of !reliminar# attachment. D filed a!etition for certiorari so A re'ersed. * now assails the As decision.

Issue: (hether A was correct in allowing d"e co"rse to Ds !etition for certiorari

Held: o. As a general r"le, an interloc"tor# order is not a!!ealable "ntil after the renditionof the &"dgment on the merits. 9owe'er, certiorari is an a!!ro!riate remed# to assail aninterloc"tor# order @1 when the trib"nal iss"ed s"ch order witho"t or in e$cess of

&"risdiction or with gra'e ab"se of discretion and @2 when the assailed interloc"tor# order is !atentl# erroneo"s and the remed# of a!!eal wo"ld not afford ade6"ate and e$!editio"srelief. The !resent case does not fall "nder the e$ce!tions beca"se D still had reco"rse to a!lain, s!eed# and ade6"ate remed#, which is the filing of a motion to fi$ the co"nterbond.

ACEDA V. DBP2% A"g. 1

Facts: * won a case against D. D a!!ealed and the trial co"rt granted e$ec"tion !endinga!!eal. 9owe'er, the A re'ersed and denied e$ec"tion !ending the a!!eal of the case.

Issue: (hether there are good reasons to &"stif# e$ec"tion !ending a!!eal

Held: o. +ec. 2, R"le a!!lies and his r"le is strictl# a!!lied against the mo'ant.$ec"tion !ending a!!eal is "s"all# not fa'ored beca"se it affects the rights of the !artieswhich are #et to be ascertained on a!!eal. The re6"isites are: @1 there m"st be a motionb# the !re'ailing !art# with notice to the ad'erse !art# @2 there m"st be a good reason for e$ec"tion !ending a!!eal and @ the good reason m"st be stated in a s!ecial order. 7n thiscase, there are no s!ecial, im!ortant, or !ressing reasons that wo"ld &"stif# e$ec"tion!ending a!!eal.

INTERVENTION

FIRESTONE CERAICS V. CA2 +e!t. 1

Facts: The go'ernment filed a case to ann"l the certificate of title of D co'ering forestland.H wanted to inter'ene belie'ing that if Ds title wo"ld be ann"lled and after declassificationof the forestland to alienable land, then his title o'er a !ortion of the !ro!ert# wo"ld become



'alid. ? also wanted to inter'ene beca"se the cancellation of Ds title wo"ld allegedl# !a'ethe wa# for his free !atent a!!lication.

Issue: (hether H and ? sho"ld be allowed to inter'ene.

Held: o. 7nter'ention is not a matter of right b"t ma# be !ermitted b# the co"rts when thea!!licant shows that he is 6"alified to inter'ene as !ro'ided "nder +ec. 1 of R"le 1. Thelegal interest of the inter'enor m"st be of direct and immediate character and not merel#contingent or e$!ectant so that he will either gain or lose b# the direct o!eration of the

&"dgment. H and ? merel# ha'e a collateral interest in the s"b&ect matter of the litigation,th"s, allowing inter'ention wo"ld not be &"stified.

Jud;6e3t

BALUYOT VS. GUIAO+e!tember 28, 1

Facts* * filed a case to declare n"ll and 'oid a donation of a !iece of land against D. *claimed ownershi! of the same. After trial, the co"rt declared the donation 'oid and * theowner of the land and iss"ed a writ of !ossession in fa'or of *. D now a!!eals the

&"dgment. <ne of the errors assigned was that the co"rt committed gra'e ab"se of discretion in iss"ing the writ of !ossession.

Issue* (hether the writ of !ossession was iss"ed in e$cess of &"risdiction.

Held* ?es.J"dgment is not confined to what a!!ears on the face of the decision, b"t also those

necessaril# incl"ded therein or necessar# thereto and, where the ownershi! of a !arcel of land was decreed in the &"dgment, the deli'er# of the !ossession of the land sho"ld beconsidered incl"ded in the decision, it a!!earing that the defeated !art#s claim to the!ossession thereof is based on his claim of ownershi!. Also, ad&"dication of ownershi!wo"ld incl"de the deli'er# of !ossession if the defeated !art# has not shown an# right to!ossess the land inde!endentl# of his claim or ownershi! which was re&ected. 7n s"chcase, writ of e$ec"tion wo"ld be re6"ired if the defeated !art# does not s"rrender the!ossession of the !ro!ert#. 9ere, there is no allegation, m"ch less !roof, that !etitionersha'e an# right to !ossess the land inde!endent of their claim of ownershi!.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE

BALAGTAS ULTI2PURPOSE COOPERATIVE INC. V. CA

1% +e!t. 1

Facts: The A denied the motion for reconsideration filed b# * beca"se 4onl# the )otionfor Reconsideration before the LR and Einancial +tatement of * were attached b"t still



witho"t the other material doc"ments mentioned in the !etition, s"ch as, @a com!laint, @b!osition !a!ers, and @c resignation letter of !ri'ate res!ondent.5

Issue: (hether the A erred in not finding s"fficient com!liance on the !art of * with there6"irements of the R"les of i'il *roced"re

Held: ?es. The s"bmission of said financial statement together with the motion for reconsideration constit"tes s"bstantial com!liance with the re6"irements of +ection , R"leC%. The r"les of !roced"re are not to be a!!lied in a 'er# rigid, technical sense r"les of !roced"re are "sed onl# to hel! sec"re s"bstantial &"stice. 7f a technical and rigidenforcement of the r"les is made, their aim wo"ld be defeated.

LITIS PENDENTIA

TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS V. SANDIGANBAYAN2% Jan. 2000

Facts: * filed a case against D for recon'e#ance, re'ersion, and restit"tion of illegall#obtained assets. filed another case against * et al., with the +andiganba#an for s!ecific!erformance and the n"llification of the writ of se6"estration.

Issue: (hether the second case sho"ld be dismissed on the gro"nd of litis !endentia or consolidation with the first case

Held: o. The re6"isites of litis !endentia are absent in this case @no identit# of !arties noidentit# of rights asserted and reliefs !ra#ed for. The cases sho"ld be resol'edinde!endentl# beca"se merger or consolidation of the two 'ia mere motion is clearl#"nwarranted.

ODES OF DISCOVERY

SECURITY BANK V. CA2; Jan. 2000

Facts: * filed a case against D to en&oin the e$tra&"dicial foreclos"re of a mortgage.The co"rt granted s motions for !rod"ction, ins!ection, co!#ing of doc"ments relating tothe mortgage. * ob&ected.

Issue: (hether the co"rt erred in allowing the modes of disco'er#

Held: o. o"rts are gi'en wide latit"de in granting motions for disco'er#. o"rts sho"ldallow !rod"ction of doc"ments that are rele'ant to the s"b&ect matter of the action. Toenable a !art# to intelligentl# !re!are his defenses and to come "! with a f"ll determinationof the iss"es constit"te good ca"ses for the grant of motions for !rod"ction of doc"ments.

NE0 TRIAL

OLAN V. CA



10 +e!t. 1

Facts: D lost in an e&ectment case. The RT allowed e$ec"tion !ending a!!eal. D filed amotion to 6"ash the writ of e$ec"tion and attached thereto the alleged 4newl# disco'erede'idence.5 The RT denied the motion and D com!lained beca"se his newl# disco'erede'idence was not considered b# the co"rt.

Issue: (hether the newl# disco'ered e'idence sho"ld be admitted

Held: o. D sho"ld ha'e filed a motion for new trial on the gro"nd of newl# disco'erede'idence in accordance with R"le /. D also failed to s"!!ort his claim affida'its showingthat @a the e'idence was disco'ered after trial @b s"ch e'idence co"ld not ha'e beendisco'ered and !rod"ced at the trial with reasonable diligence and @c that it is material andif admitted, it will !robabl# change the &"dgment.

PRE2TRIAL AND ETRINSIC FRAUD

ALARCON V. CA28 Jan. 2000

Facts: * filed a case for the n"llification of the sale of his land to D, , and E. D"ring !retrial, all the !arties agreed and manifested that the doc"ment of sale was 'oid so the trialco"rt declared the doc"ment of sale to be 'oid ab initio. D filed a !etition to ann"l thedecision.

Issue: (hether the !etition for ann"lment of the decision wo"ld !ros!er

Held: o. Eirst, there was no e$trinsic fra"d to merit ann"lment of the decision. Era"d isregarded as e$trinsic when it !re'ents a !art# from ha'ing a trial or from !resenting hisentire case to co"rt, or where it o!erates "!on matters !ertaining not to the &"dgment itself b"t to the manner in which it is !roc"red. o"nsel !ro!erl# re!resented D at all stages of the !roceedings and he was not de!ri'ed of ha'ing a trial. +econd, an action based on fra"d m"st be filed within C #ears from disco'er#thereof. - filed the !etition #ears from the rendition of the assailed &"dgment. Einall#, !retrial is mandator#. ntering into a sti!"lation of facts or admissions of facts e$!edites trial and relie'es !arties and the co"rt of the costs of !ro'ing facts that willnot be dis!"ted d"ring trial. +ti!"lations of facts made in the !retrial hearing are binding onthe !arties. -ased on the clear admissions made b# the !arties, D cannot now claim that hewas denied his da# in co"rt.

PREJUDICIAL !UESTION

CITY OF PASIG V. COELEC10 +e!t. 1

Facts: <)L s"s!ended the !lebiscite sched"led for the creation of new baranga#s in)"nici!alit# * in 'iew of the !ending bo"ndar# dis!"te between )"nici!alit# * and)"nici!alit# D. )"nici!alit# * ob&ected.



Issue: (hether there is a !re&"dicial 6"estion

Held: ?es. The general r"le is that a !re&"dicial 6"estion contem!lates a ci'il and criminalaction and does not come into !la# when both cases are ci'il. 9owe'er, in the interest of good order, the +"!reme o"rt can s"s!end action on one case !ending the final o"tcomeof another case closel# interrelated or lin3ed to the first e'en if the two are both ci'il cases.The e$ce!tion a!!lies in this case.

REAL PARTY2IN2INTEREST

BORLONGAN V. ADRIDEO2; Jan. 2000

Facts: * and D occ"!ied Hs lot. * filed an "nlawf"l detainer case against D claiming thatshe is the sole lessee and that Ds !ossession was b# mere tolerance of *. H, the owner of the lot, testified that both * and D were rightf"l lessees.

Issue: 1. (ho has the b"rden of !roofM 2. (hether * is the real !art#ininterest

Held: 1. * has the b"rden of !roof. 7n ci'il cases, the b"rden of !roof is on the !laintiff whois the !art# asserting the affirmati'e of an iss"e. 9owe'er, * failed to meet the b"rden, asshe was "nable to s"bstantiate her claim that she is the sole lessee of the !ro!ert#. 2. * is not the real !art#ininterest. A 4real !art#ininterest5 is one who stands to bebenefited or in&"red b# the &"dgment in the s"it or the !art# entitled to the a'ails of the s"it.+ince * failed to !ro'e that she is the sole lessee of the !ro!ert#, * cannot be the real!art#ininterest in the "nlawf"l detainer case.

UY V. CA +e!t. 1

Facts: A and - were agents a"thoried to sell a !arcel of land. The# filed a case in their own name against a third !art# for breach of contract in'ol'ing the land the# were s"!!osedto sell. The !rinci!als of A and - were not !leaded as !art#!laintiffs, Th"s, their com!laintwas dismissed on the gro"nd that the# were not the real !artiesininterest.

Issue: (hether A and - can be considered as real !artiesininterest

Held: o. +ec. 2, R"le re6"ires that e'er# action be !rosec"ted and defended in thename of the real !art#ininterest. The agents are not !arties to the said contract based onthe !rinci!les of agenc#. either are the# heirs of the !rinci!al, assignees, or beneficiariesof a stipulation pour autrui . Th"s, A and - are not the real !artiesininterest in this case.

RES JUDICATA

GREENFIELD REALTY CORP. V. CARDAA



2; Jan. 2000

Facts: * filed a case against D. A similar case in'ol'ing the !arties had been !re'io"sl#dismissed for the case was amicabl# settled. D said the !resent action is barred b# res

&"dicata.

Issue: (hether res &"dicata a!!lies

Held: o. 7ndeed, &"dgment "!on a com!romise agreement has the effect of res &"dicata.9owe'er, there is no res &"dicata when the ca"se of action arises from the a!!lication or 'iolation of the com!romise agreement.

VAN NGHIA V. RODIGUE"1 Jan. 2000

Facts: A, a foreigner, was !re'io"sl# de!orted and barred from again entering the

*hili!!ines. 9owe'er, A was able to enter the co"ntr# again so he was arrested andcharged with 'iolating the *hil. 7mmigration Act. A filed a !etition for habeas cor!"s b"t itwas denied. 9is fiancNe filed another !etition for habeas cor!"s on As behalf.

Issue: (hether res &"dicata a!!lies

Held: ?es. This is alread# the second !etition for habeas cor!"s filed b# !etitioner beforethe co"rts. There is res &"dicata when @1 a &"dgment had become final @2 s"ch &"dgmentwas rendered on the merits @ s"ch &"dgment was rendered b# a co"rt with &"risdictiono'er the s"b&ect matter and the !arties and @C there is identit# of !arties, s"b&ect matter,and ca"ses of action in the !re'io"s and s"bse6"ent actions. The !resent !etition allegesthe same matters and ca"se of action as the one !re'io"sl# filed. learl#, it is barred b# res

&"dicata.

SERVICE OF SUONS

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY V. CAOIBES1 A"g. 1

Facts: 7n a ci'il case, D filed a )anifestation and )otion !ra#ing that his answer !re'io"sl#filed be treated as his answer to the amended com!laint. 9owe'er, the co"rt considered themotion as not filed on the gro"nd of noncom!liance with +ec. 1 of R"le 1.

Issue: (hether the co"rt erred in not acce!ting the motion

Held: ?es. Altho"gh A failed to com!l# with the re6"ired !roof of ser'ice, it is worth# tonote that A Os )otion and )anifestation is not a contentio"s motion and therefore, no right of the ad'erse !art# wo"ld be affected b# the admission thereof. The filing of said motion wasnot e'en necessar# since the Answer !re'io"sl# filed b# A co"ld ser'e as the Answer to the

Amended om!laint e'en if no motion to admit was filed, as !ro'ided in +ec. of R"le 11.



STAYING THE IEDIATE EECUTION OF JUDGENT

LAPE1A V. PAARANG1; Eeb. 2000

Facts: * won in an "nlawf"l detainer case. A writ of e$ec"tion was iss"ed and wasdeli'ered to sheriff D for e$ec"tion. 9owe'er, sheriff D ret"rned the writ 4d"l# ser'ed b"t notsatisfied.5

Issue: (hether sheriffs action was !ro!er

Held: o. To sta# the immediate e$ec"tion of a &"dgment in an e&ectment case whilea!!eal is !ending, the defendant m"st: @a !erfect his a!!eal @b file a s"!ersedeas bondand @c !eriodicall# de!osit the rentals which become d"e d"ring the !endenc# of thea!!eal. )ere filing of a notice of a!!eal does not sta# e$ec"tion in an e&ectment case. 7tdoes not a!!ear from sheriff Ds ret"rn that the re6"isites were !resent so as to &"stif# hisdesistance from im!lementing the writ of e$ec"tion.

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

OBANDO V. FIGUERAS18 Jan. 2000

Facts: 7n a ci'il case, D filed a motion to dismiss and this was granted. * claimed that themotion to dismiss is in'alid since at the time of filing, Att#. ? no longer re!resented D.

Issue: (hether or not Att#. ? ceased to be Ds co"nsel

Held: o. Re!resentation contin"es "ntil the co"rt dis!enses with the ser'ices of co"nselin accordance with +ec. 2%, R"le 18. o"nsel ma# be 'alidl# s"bstit"ted onl# if thefollowing re6"isites are com!lied with: @1 new co"nsel files a written a!!lication for s"bstit"tion @2 the clients written consent is obtained and @ the written consent of thelaw#er to be s"bstit"ted is sec"red, if it can still be if the written consent can no longer beobtained, then the a!!lication for s"bstit"tion m"st carr# !roof that notice of the motion hasbeen ser'ed on the attorne# to be s"bstit"ted in the manner re6"ired b# the r"les.

OBANDO V. FIGUERAS18 Jan. 2000

Facts: 7n a ci'il case, D filed a )otion to Dismiss on the gro"nd that * lost his ca!acit# tos"e d"ring the !endenc# of the case. * assailed the motion, sa#ing that it was too late since* had alread# finished !resenting his e'idence.

Issue: (hether the motion to dismiss sho"ld be granted

Held: ?es. The !eriod to file a motion to dismiss de!ends "!on the circ"mstances of thecase. +ec. 1 of R"le 1% re6"ires that, in general, a motion to dismiss sho"ld be filed within



the reglementar# !eriod for filing a res!onsi'e !leading. -"t the co"rt allows a defendant tofile a motion to dismiss on the ff. gro"nds: @1 lac3 of &"risdiction @2 litis !endentia @ lac3of ca"se of action and @C disco'er# d"ring trial of e'idence that wo"ld constit"te a gro"ndfor dismissal.

SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES

BENAVIDE" V. CA% +e!t. 1

Facts: * filed a forcible entr# case against D. * won. D assailed the r"ling for he claimedthat d"ring the !endenc# of the case, * died and *s co"nsel failed to inform the co"rtthereof. D contended that s"ch fail"re to inform n"llifies the co"rts &"dgment.

Issue: (hether or not D is correct

Held: D is wrong. The fail"re of co"nsel to com!l# with his d"t# "nder +ec. 1% R"le to

inform the co"rt of the death of his client @and as a conse6"ence, no s"bstit"tion of !artiesis effected will not in'alidate the !roceedings and the &"dgment thereon if the actions"r'i'es the death of s"ch !art#. An action for forcible entr#, li3e an# action for reco'er# of real !ro!ert#, is a real action and as s"ch s"r'i'es the death of *.

SUARY JUDGENT

GARCIA V. CA10 A"g. 1

Facts: * filed a case against D for the n"llification of the e$tra&"dicial foreclos"re of

mortgage. * mo'ed for s"mmar# &"dgment and later on, D also mo'ed for s"mmar# &"dgment. The trial co"rt granted the same. The trial co"rt r"led in fa'or of * b"t the Are'ersed. * arg"ed that the A committed an error belie'ing that he alone as !laintiff in thetrial co"rt is entitled to s"mmar# &"dgment.

Issue: (hether the *s reasoning is correct

Held: o. Gnder R"le C, either !art# ma# mo'e for s"mmar# &"dgment B the claimant b#'irt"e of +ec. 1 and the defending !art# b# 'irt"e of +ec. 2. There was no error on the !artof the co"rt in resorting to s"mmar# &"dgment as !ra#ed for b# both !arties.

SUONS

E. B. VILLAROSA V. BENITO% A"g. 1

Facts: * filed a case against D for breach of contract. D is a limited !artnershi!. +"mmonswere ser'ed "!on D thro"gh its -ranch )anager H. D filed a motion to dismiss on thegro"nd of lac3 of &"risdiction o'er its !erson beca"se s"mmons were im!ro!erl# ser'ed.The trial co"rt denied Ds motion.



Issue: (hether there was !ro!er ser'ice of s"mmons

Held: o. The en"meration of !ersons @!ro'ided "nder +ec. 11 R"le 1C "!on whoms"mmons ma# be ser'ed to bind a domestic cor!oration or !artnershi! is restricted, limited,and e$cl"si'e. +er'ice of s"mmons "!on !ersons other than those mentioned in the R"le isim!ro!er. The branch manager is not incl"ded in the list so ser'ice of s"mmons "!on himwas im!ro!er. onse6"entl#, the co"rt did not ac6"ire &"risdiction o'er the !erson of D.

0RIT OF EECUTION

VOLUNTAD V. DI"ON2% A"g. 1

Facts: There was a !ending case concerning a !arcel of land. * ca"sed the annotation of a notice of lis !endens on the certificate of title. The notice, howe'er, was !remat"rel#cancelled. 7 the meantime, D sold the land to H. * won the case so"ght to e$ec"te the

&"dgment against H.

Issue: (hether the &"dgment ma# be e$ec"ted against H

Held: ?es. A writ of e$ec"tion ma# be iss"ed against a !erson not a !art# to the casewhere the latters remed#, which he did not a'ail of, was to inter'ene in the case in'ol'ingrights o'er the !arcel of land of which he claims to be the 'endee. +ince the notice of lis!endens was onl# !remat"rel# cancelled, H sho"ld ha'e been aware of the !endenc# of thecase and sho"ld ha'e inter'ened in the s"it to !rotect his alleged rights. 9a'ing failed to doso, H is bo"nd b# the res"lt of the case.

TERRY V. PEOPLE

1% +*T. 1

Facts: <n A"g"st 1, 1/, the E7 rendered a decision for which, no a!!eal was made.<n o'ember 22, 1/, a writ of e$ec"tion was iss"ed against *. 9owe'er, the writ was notser'ed on *. <n December , 18;, the co"rt, iss"ed an alias writ of e$ec"tion.

Issue: (hether the writ of e$ec"tion was 'alidl# iss"ed

Held: o. The r"le is that the co"rt co"ld iss"e a writ of e$ec"tion b# motion within fi'e @;#ears from finalit# of the decision, which in this case was in 1/. A writ of e$ec"tion iss"edafter the e$!iration of that !eriod is n"ll and 'oid. There is a need for the interested !art# tofile an inde!endent action for re'i'al of &"dgment.

Acc7-3 ?u=l7c7a3a

DOINICA CUTANDA VS. HEIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA



G.R. NO. #&,'#+ ('&&&)

Facts* Ds !redecessorininterest, H, ac6"ired !ossession of a !arcel of land in 1. 7n188, * filed a com!laint against D for reco'er# of !ossession of said land.

Issue* (hether *s ca"se of action was barred.

Held* ?es. The remedies of accion !"bliciana or accion rei'indicatoria m"st be a'ailed of within 10 #ears from dis!ossession. 9ence, insofar as D is concerned, *s ca"se of actionwas barred b# e$tincti'e !rescri!tion, regardless of whether their com!laint is considered asan accion !"bliciana or an accion rei'indicatoria.

A6e3ded a3d su??le6e3tal c-6?la73t

ARB CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. CA

G.R. NO. #':++% ('&&&)

Facts* * filed a om!laint for *reliminar# 7n&"nction against D. Thereafter, * filed a )otionfor Lea'e to Eile Attached Amended and +"!!lemental om!laint. * s"bmitted that it nowdesired to !"rs"e a case for +"m of mone# and Damages instead of the one !re'io"sl#filed for *reliminar# 7n&"nction. D o!!oses the )otion.

Issue* (hether the Amended and +"!!lemental om!laint wo"ld s"bstantiall# change *sca"se of action

Held* o. The amendator# allegations are mere am!lifications of the ca"se of action if thefacts alleged in the amended com!laint show s"bstantiall# the same wrong with res!ect to

the same transaction, or if what are alleged refer to the same s"b&ect matter b"t are f"ll#and differentl# stated, or where a'erments which were im!lied are made in e$!ressedterms, and the s"b&ect of the contro'ers# or the liabilit# so"ght to be enforced remains thesame. 9ere, the original as well as amended and s"!!lemental com!laints readil# disclosethat the a'erments contained therein are almost identical.

A6e3d6e3t t- c-34-56 t- e97de3ce

BERNARDO ERCADER VS. DBP

G.R. NO. #$&:,, ('&&&)Facts* 7n its *reTrial <rder, the RT limited the iss"es to be resol'ed in the case to threeiss"es. Thereafter, the !laintiff, *, filed a s"!!lemental !leading that dealt with a new iss"ein'ol'ing a lease!"rchase o!tion. D o!!osed the s"!!lemental !leading

Issue* (hether the iss"e in'ol'ing the lease!"rchase o!tion was !ro!erl# raised in the!leadings



Held* ?es. +aid iss"e was raised in the s"!!lemental !leading s"bse6"entl# filed b# *. As as"!!lemental !leading, it ser'ed to a'er s"!er'ening facts which were then not ri!e for

&"dicial relief when the original !leading was filed. As s"ch, it was meant to s"!!l#deficiencies in aid of the original !leading, and not to dis!ense with the latter.

BERNARDO ERCADER VS. DBPG.R. NO. #$&:,, ('&&&)

Eacts: D"ring the trial, the co"nsel of D !artici!ated in the direct and crosse$amination of witnesses whose testimonies incl"ded an iss"e not among those a!!earing in the *reTrial<rder. The RT r"led on the said iss"e. D 6"estions the RTs incl"sion of the said iss"e inits r"ling.

7ss"e: (hether the said iss"e sho"ld be decided b# the RT

9eld: ?es. D is esto!!ed from 6"estioning the RTs incl"sion of said iss"e b# its

!artici!ation in the direct and crosse$amination of witnesses whose testimonies incl"dedsaid to!ic.

BERNARDO ERCADER VS. DBPG.R. NO. #$&:,, ('&&&)

Eacts: D"ring the trial, * offered e'idence on an iss"e not alleged in the !leadings. Dob&ected to the introd"ction of s"ch e'idence.

7ss"e: (hether the RT ma# admit the e'idence

9eld: ?es. (hen e'idence is offered on a matter not alleged in the !leadings, the co"rt ma#admit it e'en against the ob&ection of the ad'erse !art#, where the latter fails to satisf# theco"rt that the admission of the e'idence wo"ld !re&"dice him in maintaining his defense"!on the merits, and the co"rt ma# grant him a contin"ance to enable him to meet the newsit"ation created b# the e'idence. <f co"rse, the co"rt, before allowing the e'idence, as amatter of formalit#, sho"ld allow an amendment of the !leading.

A??eal

UNITED AIRLINES VS. UY$# SCRA +/:

Facts* The RT ordered the dismissal of an action. * filed a timel# motion forreconsideration. The RT denied the motion and * recei'ed the denial order on 28+e!tember. 2 da#s later, * filed a notice of a!!eal. The a!!ellate co"rt ga'e d"e co"rse tothe a!!eal.



Issue* (hether the a!!ellate co"rt erred in ass"ming &"risdiction o'er *s a!!eal since it isclear that the notice of a!!eal was filed o"t of time.

Held* o. Dela# in the filing of a notice of a!!eal does not &"stif# the dismissal of the a!!ealwhere the circ"mstances of the case show that there is no intent to dela# the administrationof &"stice on the !art of a!!ellants co"nsel, or when there are no s"bstantial rights affected,or when a!!ellants co"nsel committed a mista3e in the com!"tation of the !eriod of a!!eal, an error not attrib"table to negligence or bad faith.

FILIPINA SY VS. CAG.R. NO. #'/':$ ('&&&)

Facts* * filed a !etition for the declaration of absol"te n"llit# of her marriage to D on thegro"nd of !s#chological inca!acit#. The RT denied the !etition. <n a!!eal to the o"rt of

A!!eals, * raised the iss"e of the lac3 of a marriage license.

Issue* (hether * can raise this iss"e for the first time on a!!eal

Held* ?es. The general r"le is that litigants cannot raise an iss"e for the first time on a!!eal.9owe'er, the obser'ance of this r"le ma# be rela$ed. Technicalities are not ends inthemsel'es b"t e$ist to !rotect and !romote s"bstanti'e rights of litigants. The case at bar re6"ires the o"rt to address the iss"e of the 'alidit# of the marriage which * claims is 'oidfrom the beginning for lac3 of marriage license. *arentheticall#, the !ertinent facts here arenot dis!"ted and what is re6"ired is a declaration of their effects according to e$isting law.

JOSE OROSA VS. CAG.R. NO. ###&& ('&&&)

Facts* The RT dismissed *s com!laint against D. <n a!!eal, * raised for the first timeiss"es which were not raised in the orginal com!laint.

Issue* (hether * can raise iss"es for the first time a!!eal

Held* o. )eritorio"s as *s new arg"ments are, the# came too late in the da#. -asic is ther"le that matters not raised in the com!laint cannot be raised for the first time on a!!eal.

EDGARDO ANCENIDO VS CA

G.R. NO. ##:&+ ('&&&) Facts* The RT rendered a decision in fa'or of *. D filed a notice of a!!eal. 9owe'er, Dser'ed the notice of a!!eal "!on *, and not "!on *s co"nsel of record. The lower co"rtga'e d"e co"rse to s"ch a!!eal.

Issue* (hether D !erfected their a!!eal



Held* o. The R"les of o"rt !ro'ide that ser'ice of notice when a !art# is re!resented b#co"nsel sho"ld be made "!on co"nsel, and not "!on the !art#.

EDGARDO ANCENIDO VS. CAG.R. NO. ##:&+ ('&&&)

Facts* D filed a notice of a!!eal in the RT b"t failed to ser'e the notice of a!!eal "!on *sco"nsel. * filed his own notice of a!!eal. The RT recalled the order granting Ds a!!ealand a!!ro'ed the a!!eal of *. D filed a !etition for mandam"s, !rohibition and in&"nctionwith the o"rt of A!!eals with !ra#er that their notice of a!!eal be gi'en d"e co"rse. Theo"rt of A!!eals granted the !etition for mandam"s and ordered the &"dge to ele'ate theoriginal record of the case to it 4in d"e co"rse of a!!eal.5

Issue* (hether the order of the o"rt of A!!eals was correct

Held* ?es. * did a!!eal the decision of the RT to the o"rt of A!!eals within the

reglamentar# !eriod to !erfect an a!!eal. <nce a written notice of a!!eal is filed, a!!eal is!erfected and the trial co"rt loses &"risdiction o'er the case, both o'er the record ands"b&ect of the case.

INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE CO. VS. PABLO BONDADG.R. NO. #$:/'' ('&&&)

Facts* * filed a *etition for Re'iew to the +"!reme o"rt of a decision of the o"rt of A!!eals in a case in'ol'ing a 'ehic"lar accident. +aid *etition raises 6"estions regardingthe ca"se of the accident and the !ersons res!onsible for it.

Issue* (hether s"ch 6"estions can be re'iewed b# the +"!reme o"rt

Held* o. +"ch 6"estions are fact"al iss"es which the +"!reme o"rt cannot !ass "!on. As a r"le, the &"risdiction of the o"rt is limited to a re'iew of errors of law allegedl#committed b# the a!!ellate co"rt. Tr"e, there are instances when this o"rt ma# re'iewfact"al iss"es, b"t * has failed to demonstrate wh# his case falls "nder an# of them. Thereis no contrariet# between the findings of the trial co"rt and those of the A as to what andwho had ca"sed the accident.

SPOUSES JUAN DIA" VS. JOSE DIA"

G.R. NO. #$++ ('&&&)

Facts* 7n his om!laint, * alleged that he was entitled to recei'e *1;,000 as his share inthe sales !roceeds of a coowned !ro!ert#. 9e thereafter claimed that, with his 3nowledgeand witho"t his ob&ection, the same *1;,000.00 was "sed b# his brother. 9a'ing allowed hisbrother to "se his mone#, * demanded the ret"rn of the !resent e6"i'alent of hiscontrib"tion b"t said demand was re&ected.

Issue* (hether the com!laint states a ca"se of action



Held* ?es. According to &"ris!r"dence, a com!laint states a ca"se of action when it containsthe following elements: @1 the legal right of !laintiff, @2 the correlati'e obligation of thedefendant, and @ the act or omission of the defendant in 'iolation of said legal right. 7n thecase at bar, the com!laint satisfies all the elements of a ca"se of action.

SPOUSES JUAN DIA" VS. JOSE DIA"G.R. NO. #$++ ('&&&)

Facts* * filed an action for s"m of mone# with the RT. D filed a motion to dismiss, towhich the RT denied. )otion for reconsideration was li3ewise denied. Dissatifsied, D fileda *etition for ertiorari and *rohibition with the o"rt of A!!eals. +aid !etition wasdismissed on the gro"nd that a s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari is not the a!!ro!riateremed# to 6"estion the denial of their motion to dismiss.

Issue* (hether a s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari is the a!!ro!riate remed# to 6"estion a

denial of a motion to dismiss

Held* o. A s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari is a remed# designed for the correction of errorsof &"risdiction and not errors of &"dgment. To &"stif# the grant of s"ch e$traordinar# remed#,the ab"se of discretion m"st be gra'e and !atent, and it m"st be shown that discretion wase$ercised arbitraril# or des!oticall#. 7n this case, no s"ch circ"mstances attended the denialof !etitioners motion to dismiss.


Facts* * recei'ed on Jan"ar# 22 a co!# of the RT, den#ing reconsideration of its r"ling ontheir )otion to dismiss. * filed a *etition for ertiorari with the o"rt of A!!eals on Eebr"ar#%. D"ring the !endenc# of *s *etition for ertiorari before the o"rt of A!!eals, the RTdeclared * in defa"lt for fail"re to file an answer on or before Jan"ar# 2/.

Issue* (hether the order of defa"lt is correct

Held* ?es. * had onl# fi'e da#s from recei!t of the order of the RT, or "ntil Jan"ar# 2/,within which to file an answer. (hen * filed their *etition for ertiorari with the o"rt of

A!!eals on Eebr"ar# %, the# were alread# in defa"lt. 9ence, the filing of said *etition for ertiorari cannot be considered as ha'ing interr"!ted the reglamentar# !eriod for filing an

answer. )ore im!ortantl#, the R"les of o"rt !ro'ide that the !etition shall not interr"!t theco"rse of the !rinci!al case "nless a tem!orar# restraining order or writ of !reliminar#in&"nction has been iss"ed against the !"blic res!ondent from f"rther !roceeding in thecase.

Cause -4 act7-3



VIE0ASTER VS. ALLEN ROASG.R. NO. #$$+/: ('&&&)

Facts* D failed to com!l# with his obligation with *. * filed with the RT a com!laint for s!ecific !erformance. The com!laint was dismissed on the gro"nd that the com!laint fails to

state a ca"se of action

Issue* (hether the com!laint states a ca"se of action.

Held* o. The test of s"fficienc# of the facts fo"nd in the com!laint as constit"ting a ca"seof action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged the co"rt can render a 'alid &"dgment"!on the same in accordance with the !ra#er thereof.

Ce5t747cate -4 3-324-5u6 s-??73;

ELO VS. CA$# SCRA ,% (#,,,)

Facts* * filed a com!laint for in&"nction against D. 7n t"rn, D mo'ed to dismiss *s action onthe gro"nd of fail"re of D to attach a certification of nonfor"m sho!!ing to her com!laint. *arg"ed that fail"re to com!l# with this re6"irement can be e$c"sed b# the fact that it is notg"ilt# of for"m sho!!ing.

Issue* (hether the fail"re to com!l# with the re6"irement sho"ld be e$c"sed.

Held* o. The re6"irement to file a certificate of nonfor"m sho!!ing is mandator#. 'er#!art# filing a com!laint or an# other intitiator# !leading is re6"ired to swear "nder oath thathe has not committed nor will he commit for"m sho!!ing. <therwise, we wo"ld ha'e anabs"rd sit"ation where the !arties themsel'es wo"ld be the &"dge of whether their actionconstit"te a 'iolation of irc"lar 0CC.

BA SAVINGS BANK VS. ROGER SIAG.R. NO. #$#'#% ('&&&)

Facts* or!oration A filed a *etition for ertiorari. The certification on antifor"m sho!!ingwas signed b# or!. As co"nsel. or! A. was able to show that its -oard of Directorsa"thoried its law#ers to sign, e$ec"te and deli'er the certificate of nonfor"m sho!!ing.

The *etition was denied on the gro"nd that +"!reme o"rt Re'ised irc"lar o. 2814re6"ires that it is the !etitioner, not the co"nsel, who m"st certif# "nder oath to all of theacts and "nderta3ings re6"ired therein.5

Issue* (hether +"!reme o"rt Re'ised irc"lar o. 281 allows a cor!oration toa"thorie its co"nsel to e$ec"te a certificate of nonfor"m sho!!ing for and on its behalf



Held* ?es. All acts within the !owers of a cor!oration ma# be !erformed b# agents of itsselection. 9ere, the cor!orations board of directors iss"ed a resol"tion s!ecificall#a"thoriing its law#er to acts as their agents in an# action or !roceeding before the+"!reme o"rt. The re6"irement of the irc"lar cannot be im!osed on artificial !ersons,li3e cor!orations, for the sim!le reason that the# cannot !ersonall# do the tas3 themsel'es.

Ce5t7-5a57

RAYUNDO VS. CA$#+ SCRA %,% (#,,,)

Facts* * did not attend the sched"led !retrial conference beca"se he was awaitingresol"tion of a motion !re'io"sl# filed. -eca"se of his nona!!earance, the RT declared *as in defa"lt and allowed D to !resent his e'idence e$ !arte. The RT rendered a decisionad'erse to *. * filed with the A a s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari challenging the 'alidit# of

the RTs decision and other !roceedings.

Issue* (hether certiorari here is !ro!er e'en where a!!eal is a'ailable.

Held* ?es. An ordinar# a!!eal is the !ro!er remed# in 6"estioning a &"dgment b# defa"lta!!eal is also the !ro!er remed# from an order den#ing a !etition for relief of &"dgment.9ence, in the normal co"rse of e'ents, the A correctl# denied the !etition for certioraribefore it, assailing the RTs decision b# defa"lt and denial of the !etition for relief, in 'iewof the a'ailabilit# of a!!eal therefrom. 9owe'er, in the e$ce!tional circ"mstances !resentedin this case, a!!eal seems to be inade6"ate conse6"entl#, e'en if !etitioner inter!osed ana!!eal, certiorari lies to correct s"ch a des!otic e$ercise of discretion.

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADIN. VS. CA$# SCRA '++ (#,,,)

Facts* The A rendered a Resol"tion dated 28 J"ne. * recei'ed the said Decision on 0C)arch. Th"s * had "ntil 1 )arch within which to !erfect its a!!eal b"t did not do so. (hatit did was to file an original action for certiorari before the +, reiterating the iss"es andarg"ments it raised before the A.

Issue* (hether the action for certiorari was !ro!er.

Held* o. The Resol"tion of the A has alread# become final and e$ec"tor# b# reason of *s fail"re to a!!eal. 7nstead of filing this !etition for certiorari "nder R"le %; of the R"les of o"rt, * sho"ld ha'e filed a timel# !etition for re'iew "nder R"le C;. There is no do"bt thatthe A has &"risdiction o'er the s!ecial ci'il action for certiorari "nder R"le %; filed before itb# *. The a!!eal from a final dis!osition of the A is a !etition for re'iew "nder R"le C;and not a s!ecial ci'il action "nder R"les %; of the 1 R"les of o"rt. R"le C; is clear that decisions, final order or resol"tion of the A in an# case, regardless of the nat"re of the



action or !roceedings in'ol'ed, ma# be a!!ealed to the + b# filing a !etition for re'iew,which wo"ld be b"t a contin"ation of the a!!ellate !rocess o'er the original case. Gnder R"le C;, the reglementar# !eriod to a!!eal is 1; da#s from notice of &"dgment or denial of a)otion for Reconsideration. Eor a writ of certiorari "nder R"le %; to iss"e, a !etitioner m"st show that he has no!lain, s!eed# and ade6"ate remed# in the ordinar# co"rse of law against its !ercei'edgrie'ance. A remed# is considered 4!lain, s!eed# and ade6"ate5 if it will !rom!tl# relie'e the!etitioner from the in&"rio"s effects of the &"dgment and the acts of the lower co"rt oragenc#. 9ere, a!!eal was not onl# a'ailable b"t also a s!eed# and ade6"ate remed#.

PAULINO VILLANUEVA VS. PEOPLEG.R. NO. #$+&, ('&&&)

Facts* The RT rendered a &"dgment against D. D a!!ealed to the o"rt of A!!eals. Theo"rt of A!!eals affirmed the RTs &"dgment. )otion for reconsideration was denied. *,the !ri'ate com!lainant, then e$ec"ted an affida'it of desistance. D filed a *etition for

ertiorari before the +"!reme o"rt, contending that the re6"isites for the grant of a newtrial on the gro"nd of newl# disco'ered e'idence ha'ing been s"bstantiall# shown, theo"rt of A!!eals sho"ld ha'e remanded the case to the RT for new trial.

Issue* (hether the o"rt of A!!eals committed error in ref"sing to grant a new trial

HELD* <. T9 RPG7+7T+ E<R (L? D7+<IRD I7D A+ A =R<GD E<R A (TR7AL AR: @A T9 I7D (A+ D7+<IRD AETR T9 TR7AL @- +G9 I7D<GLD <T 9AI - D7+<IRD AD *R<DGD AT T9 TR7AL (7T9 RA+<A-LD7L7= AD @ T9AT 7T 7+ )ATR7AL, <T )RL? G)GLAT7I, <RR<-<RAT7I, <R7)*A97=, AD 7+ <E +G9 (7=9T T9AT, 7E AD)7TTD, (7LL *R<-A-L? 9A= T9JGD=)T. 7 T9 A+ AT -AR, T9 AEE7DAI7T <E D+7+TA (A+ HGTD +IRAL

?AR+ AETR T9 <GRT <E A**AL+ 9AD AEE7R)D T9 TR7AL <GRT+ D7+7< AD9AD D7D D+ )<T7< E<R R<+7DRAT7<. 7T 7+ +TTLD T9AT AEE7DAI7T+ <ED+7+TA )AD -? A (7T++ AETR T9 <I7T7< <E T9 AG+D D+RI <L?+AT <+7DRAT7<.

C-6?uls-5@ c-u3te5cla76

SPOUSES CLARO PONCIANO VS. JUDGE PARENTELAG.R. NO. #$$'% ('&&&)

Facts* * filed a com!laint for s"m of mone# and damages against D. D filed their Answer with com!"lsor# co"nterclaim. * filed a motion to stri3e off the co"nterclaim for fail"re tocom!l# with Adm. irc"lar o. 0CC of the +"!reme o"rt which re6"ires an affida'it of nofor"m sho!!ing for all initiator# !leadings in all co"rts.

Issue* (hether a com!"lsor# co"nterclaim sho"ld be accom!anied with an affida'it of nofor"m sho!!ing



Held* o. The lang"age of the circ"lar distinctl# s"ggests that it is !rimaril# intended toco'er an initiator# !leading or an inci!ient a!!lication of a !art# asserting a claim for relief.The circ"lar has not been contem!lated to incl"de a 3ind of claim which, b# its 'er# nat"reas being a"$iliar# to the !roceedings in the s"it, can onl# be a!!ro$imatel# !leaded in theanswer and not remain o"tstanding for inde!endent resol"tion e$ce!t b# the co"rt wherethe main case is !ending.

C-u5t 5ul73;s

RUBEN SERRANO VS. NLRCG.R. NO. ##/&%& ('&&&)

Facts* The + re'ersed the doctrine form"lated in a !re'io"s case and a!!lied a newdoctrine in the instant case. *, rel#ing on the r"ling in the !re'io"s case, contends that thenew doctrine en"nciated in the instant case sho"ld onl# be a!!lied !ros!ecti'el#.

Issue* (hether a new doctrine sho"ld onl# be a!!lied !ros!ecti'el#.

Held* o. *s 'iew of the !rinci!le of !ros!ecti'e a!!lication of new &"dicial doctrines wo"ldt"rn the &"dicial f"nction into a mere academic e$ercise with the res"lt that the doctrine laiddown wo"ld be no more than a dict"m and wo"ld de!ri'e the holding in the case of an#force.

Deat -4 a ?a5t@

ANG KEK CHEN VS. ANDRADE$# SCRA ## (#,,,)

Facts* The &"dge sent co!ies of the co"rts order to D, who alread# died. Ds co"nsel filedan administrati'e case against the &"dge on the gro"nd of serio"s inefficienc# for her fail"reto ta3e &"dicial notice of the death of D.

Issue* (hether the &"dge erred in failing to ta3e &"dicial notice of Ds death.

Held* o. The d"t# of informing the co"rt of the death of a !art# is on the co"nsel of thedeceased. The r"les o!erate on the !res"m!tion that the attorne# for the deceased !art# is

in a better !osition than the attorne# for the ad'erse !art# to 3now abo"t the death of hisclient and to inform the co"rt of the names and addresses of his legal re!resentati'e or re!resentati'es. Th"s, the &"dge cannot be blamed for sending co!ies of the orders to D.

HEIRS OF ELIAS LORILLA VS. CAG.R. NO. ##:++ ('&&&)



Facts* The RT rendered &"dgment in fa'or of *. Ds co"nsel recei'ed a co!# of thedecision b"t did not inter!ose an a!!eal therefrom. A writ of e$ec"tion was iss"ed. The9eirs of * filed a motion to 6"ash the writ of e$ec"tion on the gro"nd that D died before theRT rendered its decision.

Issue* (hether the motion sho"ld be granted.

Held* o. Ds co"nsel failed in his d"t# to !rom!tl# inform the co"rt of the death of hisclient, as the R"les re6"ire. As far as the RT was concerned, "ntil the (rit of $ec"tionwas iss"ed, D contin"ed to be re!resented b# co"nsel of record and that "!on ser'ice of aco!# of the decision on said co"nsel, D was deemed to ha'e been 'alidl# ser'ed notice of

&"dgment. The fail"re of Ds co"nsel to ser'e notice on the co"rt and the ad'erse !artiesregarding his clients death binds the 9eirs as m"ch as D himself co"ld be bo"nd.

D-cet 4ees

GABRIEL LA"ARO VS. CAG.R. NO. #$//:# ('&&&) Facts* * obtained a fa'orable &"dgment in a ci'il action the# filed against D. Thereafter, Da!!ealed to the o"rt of A!!eals, where the a!!eal was initiall# dismissed for their fail"re to!a# the re6"ired doc3et fees within the !rescribed !eriod. Their a!!eal was later reinstatedwhen their motion for reconsideration was granted.

Issue* (hether the reinstatement of Ds a!!eal is correct

Held* o. The R"les of o"rt, as amended, s!ecificall# !ro'ides that a!!ellate co"rt doc3et

and other lawf"l fees sho"ld be !aid within the !eriod for ta3ing an a!!eal. +aid r"le is notmerel# director#. The !a#ment of the doc3et and other legal fees within the !rescribed!eriod is both mandator# and &"risdictional. The fail"re of D to conform with the r"les ona!!eal renders the &"dgment final and e$ec"tor#.

E>ect6e3t su7t -5 u3la<4ul deta73e5 act7-3

HEIRS OF FERNANDO VIN"ONS VS. CA

$#+ SCRA +%# (#,,,)Facts* An e&ectment s"it was filed b# * against D in the )T more than one #ear from thetermination of the monthtomonth lease some time before A!ril 188.

Issue* (hether the )T has &"risdiction o'er the case.

Held* o. This case being one of "nlawf"l detainer, it m"st ha'e been filed within one #ear from the date of last demand with the )T. <therwise it is an accion !"bliciana cogniable



b# the Regional Trial o"rt. The r"le is that the one#ear !eriod !ro'ided for in +ection 1,R"le /0 of the R"les of o"rt within which a com!laint for "nlawf"l detainer can be filedsho"ld be co"nted from the last letter of demand to 'acate.

ORO CA VS. CA$#, SCRA %%% (#,,,)

Facts* An e&ectment s"it was filed. * is not named a !art# in the s"it b"t is a colessee of the !ro!ert#. J"dgmentin the e&ectment s"it was rendered.

Issue* (hether the &"dgment binds *.

Held* ?es. J"dgment in an e&ectment s"it is binding not onl# "!on the defendants in the s"itis binding not onl# "!on the defendents in the s"it b"t also against those not made !artiesthereto, if the# are: a tres!assers, s6"atters or agents of the defendant fra"d"lentl#occ"!#ing the !ro!ert# to fr"strate the &"dgment b g"ests or other occ"!ants of the

!remises with the !ermission of the defendant c transferees !endente lite d s"blesseee colessee or f members of the famil#, relati'es and other !ri'ies of the defendant.

ANITA BUCE VS. CAG.R. NO. #$:,#$ ('&&&)

Facts* D leased to * a !arcel of land. The lease terminated witho"t an# agreement forrenewal being reached. *, howe'er, still tendered chec3s re!resenting rentals to D whichthe latter ref"sed to acce!t. * filed with the RT a com!laint for s!ecific !erformance with!ra#er for consignation. 7n his Answer with co"nterclaim, D did not incl"de a !ra#er for therestoration of !ossession of the leased !remises. The RT ordered the e&ectment of D in its

Decision.

Issue* (hether the order of the RT is correct

Held* o. Tr"e, after the lease terminated witho"t an# agreement for renewal beingreached, * became s"b&ect to e&ectment from the !remises. 9owe'er, D did not incl"de intheir Answer with co"nterclaim a !ra#er for the restoration of !ossession of leased!remises. either did the# file with the !ro!er )T an "nlawf"l detainer s"it against * afterthe e$!iration of the lease contract. )oreo'er, the iss"e of !ossession of the lease!remises was not among the iss"es agreed "!on b# the !arties.

Eecut7-3 -4 >ud;6e3t

VDA. DE SALANGA VS. HON. ALAGARG.R. NO. #$%&, ('&&&)

Facts* The )T rendered a decision ad'erse to *. * a!!ealed the decision all the wa# tothe +. )eanwhile, e$ec"tion !roceedings were cond"cted on *s !ro!ert#. Accordingl#, a



!"blic a"ction sale !roceeded with D emerging as the highest bidder. ertificates of +alewere iss"ed to D. After the + rendered a decision affirming the )Ts decision, the RTremanded the case to the )T for !roceedings on iss"es in'ol'ing e$ec"tion of its final

&"dgment.

Issue* (hether the )T can still act on *s 6"estions regarding the a"ction sale of its!ro!erties

Held* o. The e$ec"tion of the )T &"dgment has been !artiall# satisfied with the iss"anceof the ertificates of +ale to D. Th"s it can no longer act on *s 6"estions regarding thea"ction sale of its !ro!erties. The )T loses &"risdiction o'er a case that has been !artiall#satisfied.

UY VS. HON. SANTIAGOG.R. NO. #$#'$/ ('&&&)

Facts* An )T decision was a!!ealed to the RT which affirmed the said decision. D fileda !etition for re'iew with the A assailing the decision of the RT. )eanwhile, * filed a)otion for 7ss"ance of (rit of $ec"tion *ending A!!eal with the RT. The RT denieds"ch motion.

Issue* (hether the motion sho"ld be granted

Held* ?es. <nce the RT has rendered a decision in its a!!ellate &"risdiction, s"ch decisionshall, "nder the R"les on i'il *roced"re, be immediatel# e$ec"tor#, witho"t !re&"dice to ana!!eal, 'ia a !etition for Re'iew, before the o"rt of A!!eals andFor +"!reme o"rt.

F73d73;s -4 4act -4 l-<e5 c-u5ts

RI"AL SURETY VS. CAG.R. NO. ##'$:& ('&&&)

Facts* The RT made certain findings of facts in its decision against *. +aid decision wasaffirmed b# the A. 7n his !etition for re'iew on certiorari before the +, * wants the o"rtto ree$amine some fact"al iss"es.

Issue* (hether the +"!reme o"rt can re'iew the fact"al findings of the A

Held* o. Eact"al findings b# the o"rt of A!!eals are concl"si'e on the !arties and notre'iewable b# the +, and the same carr# e'en more weight when the A has affirmed thefindings of fact arri'ed at b# the lower co"rt.

F-5u6 S-??73;



KENNETH ROY SAVAGE VS. JUDGE TAYPING.R. NO. #$% '#/ ('&&&)

Facts* * mo'ed to 6"ash the search warrant iss"ed b# J on the gro"nd that the a!!licationfor the search warrant was not accom!anied b# a certification of nofor"m sho!!ing.

Issue* (hether a certification of no for"m sho!!ing is re6"ired in a!!lications for searchwarrants

HELD* <. T9 RGL+ <E <GRT A+ A)DD RPG7R +G9 RT7E7AT7< <L? ER<)77T7AT<R? *LAD7=+, <)7TT7= A? )T7< <E 4A**L7AT7<+.5

P.E.".A. VS. HON. VIAN"ONG.R. NO. #$#&'& ('&&&)

Facts* The RT iss"ed an order against *. * filed an a!!eal with the A. <n a!!eal, theA affirmed the decision of the RT and dismissed the !etition for lac3 of merit. * filed a*etition for ertiorari before the + to 6"estion !"rel# 6"estions of law. D alleges * is g"ilt#of for"m sho!!ing.

Issue* (hether * is g"ilt# of for"m sho!!ing

Held* o. There is for"m sho!!ing whene'er, as a res"lt of an ad'erse decision in onefor"m, a !art# see3s a fa'orable o!inion @other than b# a!!eal or certiorari in another.onsidering that * is 6"estioning the As r"ling b# 'irt"e of a !etition for certiorari to thiso"rt on !"rel# 6"estions of law, * cannot be g"ilt# of for"m sho!!ing. To r"le otherwise

wo"ld render n"gator# *s right to a!!eal the decision of the A to the + on !"rel#6"estions of law.

ANUEL LEYSON JR. VS. OFFICE OF THE OBUDSANG.R. NO. #$%,,& ('&&&)

Facts* D committed a breach in his contract with *. * charged D with 'iolation of the Anti=raft and orr"!t *ractices Act before the <mb"sdman. * also filed a collection casebefore the RT against D.

Issue* (hether * committed for"msho!!ing

Held* o. Eor"msho!!ing consists of filing m"lti!le s"its in'ol'ing the same !arties for thesame ca"se of action, either sim"ltaneo"sl# or s"ccessi'el#, for the !"r!ose of obtaining afa'orable &"dgment. 7t is readil# a!!arent that the !resent charge will not !ros!er beca"sethe ca"se of action herein, i.e., 'iolation of The Anti=raft and orr"!t *ractices Acts, isdifferent from the ca"se of action in the case !ending before the trial co"rt which iscollection of a s"m of mone# !l"s damages.



I3d7;e3t ?a5t@

TEOFILO ARTINE" VS. PEOPLEG.R. NO. #$'+' ('&&&)

Facts* * filed with the o"rt of A!!eals a !etition for certiorari. 9e also filed a )otion toLitigate as *a"!er attaching thereto s"!!orting affida'its e$ec"ted b# * himself and b# 2ostensibl# disinterested !ersons attesting to *s eligibilit# to a'ail himself of this !ri'ilege.The A denied the motion and directed * to remit the doc3et fees.

Issue* (hether * sho"ld be allowed to litigate as !a"!er

Held* ?es. * has com!lied with all the e'identiar# re6"irements for !rosec"ting a motion toa!!ear in co"rt as a !a"!er. 9e has e$ec"ted an affida'it attesting to the fact that he andhis immediate famil# do not earn a gross income of more than *,000.00 a month, and thattheir onl# real !ro!ert#, a h"t, cannot be worth more than *10,000.00. 9e has also

s"bmitted a &oint affida'it e$ec"ted b# H and ? who generall# attested to the sameallegations contained in !etitioners own affida'it.

Jud;6e3t

RI"AL SURETY VS. CAG.R. NO. ##'$:& ('&&&)

Facts* 7n an a!!ealed case, the A r"led on Ds ins"rable interest and com!ensabilit# for

the loss of certain ob&ects. The + affirmed the As r"ling. * filed a motion ofreconsideration of the As decision with the A. The A reconsidered its decision asregards interest.

Issue* (hether the r"le on concl"si'eness of &"dgment as regards Ds ins"rable interest.

Held* ?es. The r"le on concl"si'eness of &"dgment !recl"des the relitigation of a !artic"lar fact or iss"e in another action between the same !arties based on a different claim or ca"seof action. onsidering that Ds ins"rable interest and com!ensabilit# for the loss of certainob&ects has been settled b# the A and the +, the same can no longer be relitigated.

INDUSTRIAL ANAGEENT VS. NLRCG.R. NO. #&#/'$ ('&&&)

Facts* The Labor Arbiter @LA rendered &"dgment ordering H, ? and Q to !a# * a s"m ofmone#. 7n the alias writ of e$ec"tion iss"ed s"bse6"entl#, the LA ordered the sheriff to!roceed against H andFor ? and Q. H so"ght to 6"ash the writ of e$ec"tion on the gro"ndthat it changed the tenor of the decision b# ma3ing him solidaril# liable with ? and Q.



Issue* (hether the writ of e$ec"tion changed the tenor of the decision

Held* ?es. A solidar# obligation cannot lightl# be inferred. There is a soldar# liabilit# onl#when the obligation e$!ressl# so states, when the law so !ro'ides or when the nat"re of theobligation so re6"ires. 7n the dis!ositi'e !ortion of the LA, the word 4solidar#5 does nota!!ear. or can it be inferred from the fallo that the liabilit# of H, ? and Q is solidar#, th"stheir liabilit# sho"ld merel# be &oint.

Kata5u3;a3; Pa6=a5a3;a@

VALENCIDES VERCIDE VS. JUDGE PRISCILLA HERNANDE"A.. NO. TJ2&&2#':+ ('&&&)

Facts* * filed a case for reco'er# of !ossession of a !iece of land against D. The case wasfiled in co"rt witho"t !rior referral to the L"!ong Taga!ama#a!a since the !arties do not

reside in the same or ad&acent baranga#s. e'ertheless, D raised as an affirmati'e defensethe nonreferral of the case to the -aranga# and conse6"entl#, the &"dge dismissed thecase

Issue* (hether the !arties are re6"ired to s"bmit their dis!"te in'ol'ing real !ro!ert# to theL"!ong Taga!ama#a!a

Held* o. *D 1;08 is clear on this !oint. (here !arties do not reside in the same cit# or m"nici!alit# or in ad&oining baranga#s, there is no re6"irement for them to s"bmit their dis!"te in'ol'ing real !ro!ert# to the L"!ong Taga!ama#a!a.

Laces

JOSEFINA VILLANUEVA2IJARES VS. CAG.R. NO. #&,'# ('&&&)

Facts* A left a !arcel of land to his 8 children. -, one of the heirs, held the !ro!ert# in tr"stfor his coheirs. +e'eral #ears after, the other coheirs disco'ered that their shares hadbeen !"rchased b# - and sold in fa'or of -s children. The other children of A filed an actionfor !artition with ann"lment of doc"ments andFor recon'e#ance and damages against -schildren.

Issue* (hether the action is alread# barred b# laches.

Held* o. Laches is negligience or omission to assert a right witin a reasonable time,warranting the !res"m!tion that the !art# entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. There is no absol"te r"le on what constit"te laches. 7t is a creation of e6"it# and a!!lied not reall# to !enalie neglect or slee!ing "!on ones rights b"t rather toa'oid recogniing a right when to do so wo"ld res"lt in a clearl# ine6"itablesit"ation. 9ere, the other coheirs co"ld no be fa"lted for their fail"re to file a case since "!



to the age of ma&orit#, the# belie'ed and considered - their coheir and administrator. 7t wasonl# later that the# became aware of the actionable betra#al of -.

L7=e5al7t@ -4 te 5ules


Facts* 7n an action to reco'er a s"m of mone#, * was declared in defa"lt for his fail"re tofile a timel# answer.

Issue* (hether the order of defa"lt sho"ld be set aside. Held* ?es. +"its sho"ld as m"ch as !ossible be decided on the merits and not ontechnicalities. o"rts sho"ld be liberal in setting aside orders of defa"lt as defa"lt

&"dgments are frowned "!on and not loo3ed "!on with fa'or for the# ma# amo"nt to a!ositi'e and considerable in&"stice to the defendant. +ince r"les of !roced"re are meretools designed to facilitate the attainment of &"stice, it is well recognied that the +"!remeo"rt is em!owered to s"s!end its o!eration, or e$ce!t a !artic"lar case from its o!eration,when the rigid a!!lication thereof tends to fr"strate rather than !romote the ends of &"stice.

a3da6us

PILO ILITANTE VS. CAG.R. NO. #&/&%& ('&&&)

Facts* 9A re'alidated the demolition clearance to e&ect the s6"atters on *s land. H, the9A *ro&ect )anager, howe'er, ref"sed to im!lement the clearance to e&ect the s6"atters.* filed with the o"rt of A!!eals, among other things, a !etition for mandam"s.

Issue* (hether * is entitled to a (rit of )andam"s

Held* o. 7t is inc"mbent "!on !etitioner to show that he has a welldefined, clear andcertain right to warrant the grant of the writ of mandam"s. 9e failed to discharge thisb"rden. The records show that there is no direct order from the 9A =eneral )anager addressed to H to e'ict the s6"atters and demolish the shanties.

EGRT9R)<R, )ADA)G+ 7+ A HTRA<RD7AR? R)D? T9AT )A? - AIA7LD <E<L? (9 T9R 7+ < *LA7, +*D? AD ADPGAT R)D? 7 T9 <RD7AR? <GR+<E LA(. A *T7T7< E<R )ADA)G+ 7+ *R)ATGR 7E T9R AR AD)77+TRAT7IR)D7+ AIA7LA-L T< T9 *T7T7<R. 9R, * )A? +> A<T9R D)<L7T7< <RDRER<) T9 9A =RAL )AA=R T97+ T7) ADDR++D T< H <R T9 *RT7T 9A

Documents.mx Remedial Law Digests 1

Documents

Transcript of Documents.mx Remedial Law Digests 1