Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential
oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to
other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not
for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the
requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the
opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and
notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the
notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all
possible interested parties. Such failure was likewise excused where the interested
parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; when there is no actual or
presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or when a party is
inadvertently left out.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation
or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial
alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court is mandated. If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or
changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action
wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented,
the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which
might be detrimental and far reaching. (REPUBLIC vs. DR. UY [2013], PERALTA, J).
Preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "in cases of extreme
urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative
inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and
unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury
being a continuing one; and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather
to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties,
recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new
relation."
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person
to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a
particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory
injunction.
To justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, it must be
shown that: (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such right has been
violated and the invasion by the other party is material and substantial; and (3)
there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right which is
merely contingent and may never arise since, to be protected by injunction, the
alleged right must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as a
matter of law. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).
intention of the parties, as being inferred from the transaction by operation of law
basically by reason of equity. (ESTATE OF CABACUNGAN VS. LAIGO [2011], PERALTA,
J.)
EXECUTION OF THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING BY THE ATTORNEYIN-FACT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PARTIES MUST
PERSONALLY SIGN THE SAME: (MONASTERIO-PE VS. TONG, PERALTA, J.).
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The writ of injunction should never issue when an action
for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very
foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable
injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these
conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to
prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, and
demonstrable. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J).
THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ENTERTAINED THE JOINT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE
AT LARGE.
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY ACCUSED who was present during
the promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a
ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. (Dabuco vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 133775, January 20, 2000)
A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential
elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these
elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina [2012], PERALTA, J.)
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No.
6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the
Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands
placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under
the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in
determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors:
(1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its
nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax
declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the
government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs.
Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No.
6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the
Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands
placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under
the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in
determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors:
(1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its
nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax
declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the
government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing institution on the said land, if any. (Land Bank vs.
Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).
Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case: In
People v. Hernandez, the Court held that delay resulting from extraordinary
remedies against interlocutory orders must be read in harmony with Section 7,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that the [p]etition [under Rule 65]
shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public
respondent from further proceeding in the case. The trial court was then correct
and acting well within its discretion when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for
postponement mainly because of the pendency of their petition for transfer of
venue (MARI & PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011], PERALTA, J).
The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules.
If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary
review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused
against double jeopardy would be violated. (VILLAREAL VS. ALIGA, 2014, PERALTA,
J.)
WHEN A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, RULE 17 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, THERE IS NO NEED TO STATE IN THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING IN A SUBSEQUENT RE-FILED COMPLAINT THE FACT OF THE PRIOR FILING
AND DISMISSAL OF THE FORMER COMPLAINT. (BENEDICTO VS. LACSON [2010],
PERALTA, J.).
IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE GRANT OF DEMURRER IS TANTAMOUNT TO AN ACQUITTAL
AND THE DISMISSAL ORDER MAY NOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE THIS WOULD PLACE
THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL ORDER IS NOT
SUBJECT TO APPEAL, IT IS STILL REVIEWABLE BUT ONLY THROUGH CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT. (PEOPLE VS. ATIENZA, 2012, PERALTA, J.).
(c)
it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly
be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such
lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the
accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
(MICLAT VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).
For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the following requisites
must be present: (1) the judgment or order sought to bar the new action must be
final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the first case must be a
judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second action,
identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. As to the fourth element, it
is important to note that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: first, bar by
prior judgment which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of Court
and second, conclusiveness of judgment which is provided in Section 47 (c) of the
same Rule. There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where
the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there
is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is
identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity
of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters
actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
involved therein. On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of
judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot
again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit
may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is
not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. SIA, G.R.
NO. 165836, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, QUISUMBING, J.).
INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;
2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution
inequitable or unjust;
3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the
court;
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for
interpretation thereof; or
6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is
defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment
debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.
(GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION VS. GENERAL
MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record (FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET
AL., G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)
NON-PERALTA DECISIONS
THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE
FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:
To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy.
Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule, to wit: 1) when
public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader
interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void; 4) when
the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5)
when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are
present in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent not
having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case
against petitioners, the dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS VS.
ORDA, G.R. NO. 189402, MAY 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Clearly, the amount involved P13, 300.00
assessed value of the subject property as declared by respondents, is immaterial for
purposes of the RTCs appellate jurisdiction. All cases decided by the MTC are
generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. (SEC. 22 OF
B.P. 129; FEDERICA M. SERRANO VS. SPOUSES ANSELMO AND CARMELITA
GUTIERREZ, G.R. NO. 162366, NOVEMBER 10, 2006, TINGA, J.)
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FILING
OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1)
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2)
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in
the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of
the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner
was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a
criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief
by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which
the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one
purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of
law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG VS. SUBIC BAY
DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. NO. 162575, DECEMBER 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45 AND 65 OF THE
RULES OF COURT:
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is
a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not similar to a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e.,
regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to
the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation
of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil
action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein
provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost
remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. (SANTIAGO CUA, JR., ET.
AL. VS. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN ET. AL., G.R. NO. 181455-56, DECEMBER 4, 2009,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING:
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based
on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2)
filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res
judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with
different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata). x x x If the forum shopping is not considered
willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on
the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping
is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be
dismissed with prejudice. (CHUA VS. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. NO.
182311, AUGUST 19, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY:
An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the
estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a
creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or
contingent. (Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6,
2007, Rodolfo San Luis vs. Felicidad Sagalongos, G.R. No. 134029, February 6, 2007,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).
AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:
It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the
trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages
of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same case
in which it is offered, no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be
contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or
when no such admission was made. The admission becomes conclusive on him,
and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be
ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not. (Republic of
the Philippine vs. Estate of Hans Menzi, G.R. No. I83446, November 13, 2012, Perez,
J.)
WRITING OR DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVEN AS PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL RECORD OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRTY:
As held in Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, (2001), divorce obtained abroad is
proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the
judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an
official body or tribunal of a foreign country. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132,
on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official
record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof
attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not
kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued
by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by
the seal of his office. (Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan-Lee,
G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012, Sereno, J.).
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:
New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent
the failure of justice. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the
previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of
rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the
evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently, a motion for new
trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a
final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a
judgment and the judgment is not yet final. (NEMIA CASTRO VS. ROSALYN
GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, G.R. NO. 192737, APRIL 25, 2012, MENDOZA, J.).