People vs.

Bayotas; Civil liability ex delicto

08/22/2013 0 Comments
G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994

Facts: Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged. In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties
Add Comment

Read More

Villamor vs. Salas; jurisdiction

06/24/2013 0 Comments

G.R.

No.

101041

November

13,

1991

Facts: Petitioner Judge Adriano Villamor decided a case involving private respondent George Carlos and certain Gloria Naval. The case involves the recovery of ownership of a coconut land. While the civil case was pending, Carlos filed a criminal case against naval. The criminal case was archived because of the pendency of the civil case. Petitioner's decision states that Gloria Naval is the owner of the disputed lot. Carlos reactivated the criminal case, but was dismissed by the petitioner, since the criminal case became moot and academic since Naval is declared the legal owner.
Add Comment

Read More

Manotoc vs. CA; Civpro- service of summons

06/21/2013 0 Comments

G.R.
Facts:

No.

130974

A case for Recognition and/or Enforcement of Foreign Judgmentwas filed against petitioner Imee Marcos Manotoc. Respondent Trajano seeks the enforcement of a foreign courts judgment rendered by the United States District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America, in a case entitled Agapita Trajano, et al. v. Imee Marcos-Manotoc a.k.a. Imee Marcos, for wrongful death of deceased Archimedes Trajano committed by military intelligence officials of the Philippines allegedly under the command, direction, authority, supervision, tolerance, sufferance and/or influence of defendant Manotoc, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 39 of the then Revised Rules of Court. Based on paragraph two of the Complaint, the trial court issued a Summons addressed to petitioner at Alexandra Condominium Corporation or Alexandra Homes, E2 Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco Avenue, Pasig City. The summons and a copy of the Complaint were allegedly served upon (Mr.) Macky de la Cruz, an alleged caretaker of petitioner at the condominium unit mentioned earlier. When petitioner failed to file her Answer, the trial court declared her in default. Because of this, petitioner, by special appearance of counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over her person due to an invalid substituted service of summons.
Add Comment

Read More

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy; Civpro- jurisdiction

06/21/2013 0 Comments
G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968

Facts: After one month from the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948, spouses Tijam filed a collection case against spouses Sibonghanoy. The preliminary attachment filed by the plaintiff was dissolve by a counterbond posted by the defendants through a surety company. After being duly served with summons the defendants filed their answer in which, after making some admissions and denials of the material averments of the complaint, they interposed a counterclaim. This counterclaim was answered by the plaintiffs. The Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and, after the same had become final and executory, upon motion of the latter, the Court issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ having been returned unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the Surety's bond, against which the Surety filed a written opposition upon

two grounds, namely, (1) Failure to prosecute and (2) Absence of a demand upon the Surety for the payment of the amount due under the judgment. Upon these grounds the Surety prayed the Court not only to deny the motion for execution against its counter-bond but also the following affirmative relief : "to relieve the herein bonding company of its liability, if any, under the bond in question" Read More
Add Comment

Gemperle vs. Schenker; summons

06/19/2013 0 Comments Gemperle G.R. Facts: This case was the result of William Gemperles retaliatory act when respondent spouses Paul and Helen Schenker filed a case against him for the enforcement of Schenker's allegedly initial subscription to the shares of stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading Co., Inc. and the exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to the then unissued original capital stock of said corporation and the increase thereof, as well as for an accounting and damages. Petitioner alleged that the said complaint tainted his name as a businessman. He then filed a complaint for damages and prays for the retraction of statements made by Helen Schenker.
Add Comment

vs. No. L-18164; January 23,

Schenker 1967

Read More

Buaya vs. Polo; CrimPro- Jurisdiction

06/18/2013 0 Comments Buaya G.R. vs. ; Polo 1989

No.

L-75079

January

26,

Facts: Solemnidad Buaya is an insurance agent of private complainant of Country Bankers Insurance Corporation. Private respondent Buaya, was authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business and collect the corresponding premiums for and in behalf of the private respondent. Under the terms of the agency agreement, the petitioner is required to make a periodic report and accounting of her transactions and remit premium collections to the principal office of private

respondent located in the City of Manila. Allegedly, an audit was conducted on petitioner's account which showed a shortage. She was charged with estafa before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Add Comment

Read More

Zulueta vs. CA; Evidence: admissibility in evidence of private correspondence obtained without the consent of the owner.
05/21/2013 0 Comments CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN,respondents. G.R. No. 107383. February 20, 1996. Issue: Whether or not private correspondence obtained by a private person without the consent of the owner is admissible in evidence.
Add Comment

Read More

Manuel Isip vs. People: Crim Pro: Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.
05/21/2013 0 Comments G.R. No. 170298; June 26, 2007

FACTS: Complainant Leonardo Jose came to know petitioner spouses when they were introduced by his father Nemesio. Nemesio and the Isips were engaged in the buy and sell of pledged and unredeemed jewelry pawned by gambling habitus. Since there business is expanding, they needed a capitalist, wherein they offered to complainant their plan. Complainant agreed, so he gave pieces of jewelries for the Isips to sell at a commission basis. The said jewelries were given by complainant in Cavite. After sometimes, the Isips issued checks which are not sufficiently funded. Complainant then filed a case of estafa against the Isips.

The RTC of Cavite ruled against the Isips. The Isips contest the decision. The alleged that the transaction was done in Manila and not in Cavite since respondent is a resident of Manila. The case should then be filed in Manila. The CA affirmed the RTC. Read More
Add Comment

People vs. Anonas; Crim pro: Right to speedy trial in Preliminary Investigation
05/21/2013 0 Comments G.R. No. 156847 January 31, 2007

FACTS: On November 19, 1996, SPO4 Emiliano Anonas, respondent, assigned at the Western Police District, was apprehended by his colleagues during a raid in Sta. Cruz, Manila. The apprehending police officers claimed that he and four other persons were sniffing methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly known as shabu, a regulated drug; and that he was in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver The City Prosecutor of Manila filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), same city, two separate Informations against respondent. On December 18, 1996, respondent filed with the trial court a motion for reinvestigation on grounds that he was apprehended without a warrant of arrest and that no preliminary investigation was conducted. His motion was granted. However, the prosecutor that was assigned to conduct the reinvestigation was appointed as judge. He did not inform his successor of the pending investigation, thus the respondent remained in detention. On January 4, 2001, respondent filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the Informations, contending that the delay in the reinvestigation violated his right to due process. The trial court denied thew motion of respondent. Read More
Add Comment

People vs. Astrologo; Crim Pro: when can the illegality of an arrest be raised?
05/21/2013 0 Comments

G.R.

No.

169873

June

8,

2007

FACTS: Astrologo (accuse) was charged raping his daughter. Complainant reported the incident to the Barangay. In response, Astrologo was arrested by barangay tanods and policemen. He was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. In his defense, Astrologo denied raping his daughter; it was impossible for him to have done it, since he was with his friends when the crime was committed. The trial court found accuse guilty of the crime charge. Accuse appealed the decision of the RTC. In his appeal, he raise as one of the issues the illegality of his arrest. He contends that the trial court failed to consider that his arrest was legally objectionable because the barangay tanods and the arresting officer who arrested him had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating that he had committed the crime

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy; Civpro- jurisdiction

06/21/2013 0 Comments
G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968

Facts: After one month from the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948, spouses Tijam filed a collection case against spouses Sibonghanoy. The preliminary attachment filed by the plaintiff was dissolve by a counterbond posted by the defendants through a surety company. After being duly served with summons the defendants filed their answer in which, after making some admissions and denials of the material averments of the complaint, they interposed a counterclaim. This counterclaim was answered by the plaintiffs. The Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and, after the same had become final and executory, upon motion of the latter, the Court issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ having been returned unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the Surety's bond, against which the Surety filed a written opposition upon two grounds, namely, (1) Failure to prosecute and (2) Absence of a demand upon the Surety for the payment of the amount due under the judgment. Upon these grounds the Surety prayed the Court not only to deny the motion for execution against its counter-bond but also the following affirmative relief : "to relieve the herein bonding company of its liability, if any, under the bond in question" Issue: Whether or not the surety company can still question the jurisdiction of the trial court. Held: No, though it is clear that the case is outside the jurisdiction of the of the Regional Trial of Cebu, defendants were estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction. The Court explained "a party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.

Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction [it only raised the question of jurisdiction after 15 years] of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting." Moreover, adds the Court, "we frown upon the 'undesirable practice' of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse,"