Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2015) Law
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT
A final and executory judgment, under the doctrine of immutability and
inalterability, may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which
rendered it or even by the Supreme Court. However, as rules of procedure are mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Thus, in the absence of a
pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to
observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, courts
should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss. - PCI
Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Antonio C. Milan, Doing Business Under the
Name and Style of "A. Milan Trading," and Laura M. Milan, G.R. No.
151215, April 5, 2010
Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent
application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial
justice, the former must yield to the latter. - City of Dumaguete, herein
represented by City Mayor, Agustin R. Perdices vs. Philippine Ports
Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011
JURISDICTION
In cases where a COMELEC Division issues an interlocutory order, the same
COMELEC Division should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the order. Eddie T. Panlilio vs. Commission on Elections and Lilia G. Pineda, G.R. No.
181478, July 15, 2009
As a general rule, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of
the proceeding. However, it admits an exception where the party fully participated
in the proceedings. A teacher cannot raise want of jurisdiction when she has availed
of the remedies in the proceedings. - Civil Service Commission vs. Fatima A.
Macud, G.R. No. 177531, September 10, 2009
Court has full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction of
special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus filed directly with it for
exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly
and specifically raised in the petition. The Court may suspend or even disregard
rules when the demands of justice so require.
No court, aside from the Supreme Court, may enjoin a national government
project unless the matter is one of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue
such that unless the act complained of is enjoined, grave injustice or irreparable
injury would arise. - Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas vs. Hon. Franco T. Falcon, In His Capacity as the Presiding Judge
Page 1 of 36
Page 2 of 36
While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be
obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court
should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and not the
rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No.
166104. June 26, 2008
SUMMONS
A case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully
served as it would be difficult to conceive that when the defendant appears before
the Court complaining that he has not been validly summoned, the case against him
will immediately be dismissed. - Spouses German Anunciacion and Ana Ferma
Anunciacion and Gavino G. Conejos vs. Perpetua M. Bocanegra and George
M. Bocanegra, G.R. No. 152496, July 30, 2009
The Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the Republic by service of
summons upon the DPWH Region III alone. The applicable rule of procedure in this
case is Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that when the
defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, the service of summons may be
effected on the Office of the Solicitor General. The DPWH and its regional office are
simply agents of the Republic, which is the real party in interest. - Republic of the
Philippines represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways,
through the Hon. Secretary, Hermogenes Ebdane vs. Alberto A. Domingo,
G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
Page 4 of 36
Page 6 of 36
Page 9 of 36
Page 10 of 36
Page 11 of 36
Page 13 of 36
Page 14 of 36
While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be
obsessively strict over the occasional lapses of litigants. Given a good reason, the trial court
should set aside its order of default, constantly bearing in mind that it is the exception and not the
rule of the day. - RN Development Corporation vs. A.I.I. System, Inc., G.R. No.
166104. June 26, 2008
Before resorting to the remedy of prohibition, there should be "no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." - Spouses
Alvin Guerrero and Mercury M. Guerrero vs. Hon. Lorna Navarro Domingo,
G.R. No. 156142, March 23, 2011
MANDAMUS
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial
duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. The legal right to
the performance of the particular act sought to be compelled must be clear and
complete. Otherwise, where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt
or dispute, mandamus cannot issue. Thus, the issuance by the LRA officials of a
decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that
such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. - Fidela R.
Angeles vs. The Secretary of Justice, The Administrator, Land Registration
Page 17 of 36
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
Although matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in
a special proceeding, it would be more practical to dispense with a separate special
proceeding for the determination of the status of the parties if it appears that there
is only one property being claimed by the contending parties. - Heirs of Teofilo
Gabatan vs. Court Of Appeals and Lourdes Pacana, G.R. No. 150206, March
13, 2009
GUARDIANSHIP
A reading of Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court tells us that persons who,
though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar
causes, are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without
outside aid are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under
guardianship. - Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa, G.R. No. 184528, April 25,
2012
WRIT OF AMPARO
The constitutional right to travel is not covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
The Writ of Amparo covers the right to life, liberty, and security. A persons right to
Page 18 of 36
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
In rape cases, the accused cannot capitalize on the inconsistencies in testimonies of
the witnesses when such inconsistencies cover inconsequential details such as the
time or place of commission because they do not form part of the elements of the
offense. He cannot also bank on the delay of the filing of the offense because it is
established in jurisprudence that the delay is justified due to victims fear of public
stigma. - People of the Philippines vs. Richard O. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641,
September 10, 2009
In cases of rape, the discrepancies in the testimony of the victim as to the dates of
the commission of the offense do not negate the finding of guilt. What is material in
the offense is the occurrence of rape and not the date of commission. - People of
the Philippines vs. Alberto Buban, G.R. No. 172710, October 30, 2009
The Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the
designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting
the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of
the offense. - People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Asilan y Tabornal, G.R. No.
188322, April 11, 2012
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
In a case of murder, qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive
words such as qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an offense. Section 8 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require the use of such words to refer to
the circumstances which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the
words qualifying or qualified by that raises a crime to a higher category, but the
specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element
raising the crime to a higher category. It is sufficient that the qualifying
circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges
against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises
during trial. - People of the Philippines vs. Rene Rosas, G.R. No. 177825,
October 24, 2008
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
Page 19 of 36
Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36
Page 23 of 36
Page 24 of 36
This Court has consistently held that substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an
administrative finding of fact where the decision of the Ombudsman is not supported by
substantial evidence, but based on speculations, surmises and conjectures, as in the present case,
this Court finds sufficient reason to overturn the same. - Marita C. Bernaldo vs. The
Ombudsman and The Department Of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No.
156286, August 13, 2008
The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.
And in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. - Wilfredo Y. Antiquina vs. Magsaysay Maritime
Corporation and/or Masterbulk, Pte., Ltd., G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule."
Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be
sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent
has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a
mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial
evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on
the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of
the following recognized exceptions. - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Arnel A.
Bernardo, Attorney V, Bureau Of Internal Revenue (BIR), G.R. No. 181598,
March 6, 2013
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
It is well-settled that a judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it.
Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is
Page 25 of 36
Page 26 of 36
Page 30 of 36
Page 31 of 36
Page 32 of 36
Page 33 of 36
Page 34 of 36
Page 35 of 36
Page 36 of 36