Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2013 Jurisprudence
Enviado por
Betson CajayonDireitos autorais
Formatos disponíveis
Compartilhar este documento
Compartilhar ou incorporar documento
Você considera este documento útil?
Este conteúdo é inapropriado?
Denunciar este documentoDireitos autorais:
Formatos disponíveis
2013 Jurisprudence
Enviado por
Betson CajayonDireitos autorais:
Formatos disponíveis
REMEDIAL
LAW
JURISPRUDENTIAL
DOCTRINES
Recoletos
Review
Center
2013
Table
of
Contents
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
............................................................................................................................................................
4
Principle
of
judicial
hierarchy
.........................................................................................................................................
4
Principle
of
hierarchy
of
courts
may
be
set
aside
for
special
and
important
reasons
............................
4
Doctrine
of
non-interference
or
doctrine
of
judicial
stability
...........................................................................
4
JURISDICTION
.............................................................................................................................................................................
5
Doctrine
of
primary
jurisdiction
and
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies,
exceptions
..................
5
Omnibus
motion
rule
..........................................................................................................................................................
5
Res
Judicata,
Substantial
identity
requirement
.......................................................................................................
5
Amicable
Settlement
reached
in
barangay
conciliation
has
force
and
effect
of
res
judicata
...............
6
Repudiation
of
amicable
settlement
by
one
party,
remedies
of
the
other
party
......................................
6
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
....................................................................................................................................................................
7
Personal
action
distinguished
from
real
action
.......................................................................................................
7
Cause
of
Action
.......................................................................................................................................................................
7
Essential
elements
of
a
cause
of
action
.......................................................................................................................
7
Ultimate
facts,
meaning
......................................................................................................................................................
7
Elementary
test
for
failure
to
state
cause
of
action
...............................................................................................
7
Splitting
a
single
cause
of
action
....................................................................................................................................
8
Litis
Pendentia
as
a
ground
for
dismissal,
requisites
............................................................................................
8
Joinder
of
actions
..................................................................................................................................................................
8
Misjoinder
of
causes
of
action
.........................................................................................................................................
9
Indispensable
Parties
..........................................................................................................................................................
9
Failure
to
implead
an
indispensable
party
................................................................................................................
9
Class
Suit,
necessary
elements
........................................................................................................................................
9
Defective
verification/certification
against
forum-shopping,
when
given
due
course
.......................
10
Judgments
by
default
.......................................................................................................................................................
10
Failure
to
prosecute
..........................................................................................................................................................
10
Service
of
pleadings,
recognized
modes
..................................................................................................................
11
Mandatory
nature
of
rules
on
modes
of
service
of
pleadings
........................................................................
11
Personal
service
of
summons,
first
option
..............................................................................................................
11
Substituted
service
of
summons,
requisites
..........................................................................................................
11
Three-day
notice
rule
.......................................................................................................................................................
12
Pre-trial,
appearance
of
parties
...................................................................................................................................
12
Pre-trial,
failure
to
file
the
pre-trial
brief
................................................................................................................
12
Pre-trial,
justification
for
a
court
to
suspend
strict
adherence
to
procedural
rules
.............................
12
Intervention
.........................................................................................................................................................................
13
Intervention
not
a
matter
of
right
..............................................................................................................................
13
Modes
of
discovery,
natue
and
purpose
of
production
and
examination
of
documents
....................
13
Demurrer
to
evidence
......................................................................................................................................................
13
Judgment
on
the
pleadings
............................................................................................................................................
14
Page
1
of
26
Summary judgments ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
Fresh period rule ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Annulment of judgments ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Extrinsic fraud ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Discretionary execution of judgment ........................................................................................................................ 15
Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons ............................................................................... 15
Preliminary injunction, hearing and prior notice requirement .................................................................... 15
Preliminary injunction, the strong arm of equity ................................................................................................ 16
Preliminary injunction, duty of the court taking cognizance of petition ................................................... 16
Declaratory relief, requisites ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Certiorari ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Expropriation, measure of just compensation ...................................................................................................... 17
Expropriation, excavated soil has no separate value from expropriated property .............................. 17
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, summary nature .................................................................................. 17
Distinctions among actions for recovery of possession of real property .................................................. 17
Accion interdictal ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Sufficient allegations in ejectment cases ................................................................................................................. 18
Remedies from a judgment in direct and indirect contempt proceedings ............................................... 18
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Escheat ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Guardianship ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Writ of amparo .................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Elements of enforced disappearances ...................................................................................................................... 20
Substantial evidence in writ of amparo ................................................................................................................... 20
Government acquiescence in enforced disappearance required to be established in amparo
petition ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Writ of habeas data ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Miranda warnings must be given to traffic violators ......................................................................................... 21
Roadside questioning ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Voluntary consent to search ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Purpose of arraignment .................................................................................................................................................. 22
Elements of double jeopardy ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Right against double jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments of acquittal through ordinary
appeal and appeal by certiorari ................................................................................................................................... 23
When right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked .................................................................................. 23
Mistrial ................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
EVIDENCE .................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments ...................................................................................................... 24
Chain of custody rule ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
Page 2 of 26
Links to be proven to establish chain of custody ................................................................................................. 24
Function of chain of custody ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Dying declaration ............................................................................................................................................................... 25
Entries in official records ............................................................................................................................................... 25
PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES .............................................................................................................. 25
Writ of continuing mandamus ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Prior consultations and approval ............................................................................................................................... 26
Page
3
of
26
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
Principle of judicial hierarchy
We explained the principle of hierarchy of courts in Mendoza v. Villas, 644 SCRA 347 (2011),
stating: In Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 was dismissed for having been filed directly
with the Court, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts, to wit: Primarily, although this Court,
the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence
does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. In Heirs of Bertuldo
Hinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma, this Court made the following pronouncements: This
Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court
with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not,
however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained
freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a
general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming
regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of
extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme
Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established
policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention
which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
over-crowding of the Courts docket. [United Claimants Association of NEA (UNICAN)vs. National
Electrification Administration (NEA), 664 SCRA 483(2012)]
Principle
of
hierarchy
of
courts
may
be
set
aside
for
special
and
important
reasons
However,
as
an
exception
to
this
general
rule,
the
principle
of
hierarchy
of
courts
may
be
set
aside
for
special
and
important
reasons.
Such
reason
exists
in
the
instant
case
involving
as
it
does
the
employment
of
the
entire
plantilla
of
NEA,
more
than
700
employees
all
told,
who
were
effectively
dismissed
from
employment
in
one
swift
stroke.
This
to
the
mind
of
the
Court
entails
its
attention.
[United
Claimants
Association
of
NEA
(UNICAN)vs.
National
Electrification
Administration
(NEA),
664
SCRA
483(2012)]
Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
Cojuangco v. Villegas, 184 SCRA 374 (1990),states: The various branches of the [regional trial
courts] of a province or city, having as they have the same or equal authority and exercising as they
do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot and are not permitted to interfere
with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would
obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice. The matter is
further explained thus: It has been held that even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, it is, also,
axiomatic that the court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts. In addition, it is a
Page 4 of 26
familiar
principle
that
when
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
acquires
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
of
a
case,
its
authority
continues,
subject
only
to
the
appellate
authority,
until
the
matter
is
finally
and
completely
disposed
of,
and
that
no
court
of
co-ordinate
authority
is
at
liberty
to
interfere
with
its
action.
This
doctrine
is
applicable
to
civil
cases,
to
criminal
prosecutions,
and
to
courts-martial.
The
principle
is
essential
to
the
proper
and
orderly
administration
of
the
laws;
and
while
its
observance
might
be
required
on
the
grounds
of
judicial
comity
and
courtesy,
it
does
not
rest
upon
such
considerations
exclusively,
but
is
enforced
to
prevent
unseemly,
expensive,
and
dangerous
conflicts
of
jurisdiction
and
of
the
process.
[Pacific
Ace
Finance
Ltd.
(PAFIN)
vs.
Yanagisawa,
669
SCRA
270(2012)]
JURISDICTION
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies,
exceptions
True, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject to
certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c)
where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical
and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application
of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate
due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public
interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings. [Samar II Electric Cooperative. Inc.
(SAMELCO II) vs. Seludo, Jr., 671 SCRA 78(2012)]
Omnibus motion rule
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. (Emphasis supplied) Under this provision of law, the
Court may motu proprio dismiss a case when any of the four (4) grounds referred to therein is
present. These are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res
judicata; and (d) prescription of action. [P.L. Uy Realty Corporation vs. ALS Management and
Development Corporation, 684 SCRA 453(2012)]
Res Judicata, Substantial identity requirement
Page
5
of
26
Absolute
identity
of
parties
is
not
required
for
res
judicata
to
apply;
substantial
identity
is
sufficient.
The
Court
articulated
this
principle
was
raised
in
Cruz
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
482
SCRA
379
(2006),
in
this
wise:
The
principle
of
res
judicata
may
not
be
evaded
by
the
mere
expedient
of
including
an
additional
party
to
the
first
and
second
action.
Only
substantial
identity
is
necessary
to
warrant
the
application
of
res
judicata.
The
addition
or
elimination
of
some
parties
does
not
alter
the
situation.
There
is
substantial
identity
of
parties
when
there
is
a
community
of
interest
between
a
party
in
the
first
case
and
a
party
in
the
second
case
albeit
the
latter
was
not
impleaded
in
the
first
case.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Such
identity
of
interest
is
sufficient
to
make
them
privy-in-law,
thereby
satisfying
the
requisite
of
substantial
identity
of
parties.
Plainly,
the
two
(2)
cases
involve
the
very
same
parties,
the
same
property
and
the
same
cause
of
action
arising
from
the
violation
of
the
terms
of
one
and
the
same
deed
of
absolute
sale
with
mortgage.
In
fact,
PLU
prayed
substantially
the
same
relief
in
both
complaints.
There
is
no
reason
not
to
apply
this
principle
to
the
instant
controversy.
[P.L.
Uy
Realty
Corporation
vs.
ALS
Management
and
Development
Corporation,
684
SCRA
453(2012)]
Amicable Settlement reached in barangay conciliation has force and effect of
res judicata
It is true that an amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation proceedings, like the
Kasunduang Pag-aayos in this case, is binding between the contracting parties and, upon its
perfection, is immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public order and public policy. This is in accord with the broad precept of Article 2037 of the Civil
Code, viz.: A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata; but there
shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise. Being a by-product of
mutual concessions and good faith of the parties, an amicable settlement has the force and effect of
res judicata even if not judicially approved. It transcends being a mere contract binding only upon
the parties thereto, and is akin to a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the
Rules. Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code, such amicable settlement or
arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6) months from
the date of settlement, or by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or
municipal court, if beyond the six-month period. [Miguel vs. Montanez, 664 SCRA 345(2012)]
Repudiation
of
amicable
settlement
by
one
party,
remedies
of
the
other
party
It
must
be
emphasized,
however,
that
enforcement
by
execution
of
the
amicable
settlement,
either
under
the
first
or
the
second
remedy,
is
only
applicable
if
the
contracting
parties
have
not
repudiated
such
settlement
within
ten
(10)
days
from
the
date
thereof
in
accordance
with
Section
416
of
the
Local
Government
Code.
If
the
amicable
settlement
is
repudiated
by
one
party,
either
expressly
or
impliedly,
the
other
party
has
two
options,
namely,
to
enforce
the
compromise
in
accordance
with
the
Local
Government
Code
or
Rules
of
Court
as
the
case
may
be,
or
to
consider
it
rescinded
and
insist
upon
his
original
demand.
This
is
in
accord
with
Article
2041
of
the
Civil
Code,
which
qualifies
the
broad
application
of
Article
2037,
viz.:
If
one
of
the
parties
fails
or
refuses
to
abide
by
the
compromise,
the
other
party
may
either
enforce
the
compromise
or
regard
it
as
rescinded
and
insist
upon
his
original
demand.
[Miguel
vs.
Montanez,
664
SCRA
345(2012)]
Page
6
of
26
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
Personal action distinguished from real action
Personal action is one that is founded on privity of contracts between the parties; and in which the
plaintiff usually seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or recovery
of damages. Real action, on the other hand, is one anchored on the privity of real estate, where the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of ownership or possession of real property or interest in it. [Antonino
vs. Register of Deeds of Makati City, 674 SCRA 227(2012)]
Cause
of
Action
Section
2,
Rule
2
of
the
Rules
of
Court
defines
cause
of
action
as
the
acts
or
omission
by
which
a
party
violates
a
right
of
another.
A
cause
of
action
is
a
formal
statement
of
the
operative
facts
that
give
rise
to
a
remedial
right.
The
question
of
whether
the
complaint
states
a
cause
of
action
is
determined
by
its
averments
regarding
the
acts
committed
by
the
defendant.
Thus,
it
must
contain
a
concise
statement
of
the
ultimate
or
essential
facts
constituting
the
plaintiffs
cause
of
action.
Failure
to
make
a
sufficient
allegation
of
a
cause
of
action
in
the
complaint
warrants
its
dismissal.
[Belle
Corporation
vs.
De
Leon-Banks,
681
SCRA
351(2012)]
Essential elements of a cause of action
The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means
and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant
to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate
relief. [Belle Corporation vs. De Leon-Banks, 681 SCRA 351(2012)]
Ultimate facts, meaning
Ultimate facts mean the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the
plaintiffs primary right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the
defendant. They refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which
the cause of action rests. [Belle Corporation vs. De Leon-Banks, 681 SCRA 351(2012)]
Elementary test for failure to state cause of action
In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged
in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on
the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for. Indeed, the elementary test for
failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify
Page 7 of 26
the
relief
demanded.
Only
ultimate
facts
and
not
legal
conclusions
or
evidentiary
facts,
which
should
not
be
alleged
in
the
complaint
in
the
first
place,
are
considered
for
purposes
of
applying
the
test.
[D.M.
Ferrer
&
Associates
Corporation
vs.
University
of
Santo
Tomas,
664
SCRA
784(2012)]
Splitting a single cause of action
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a
party violates a right of another. Section 3 of Rule 2 provides that [a] party may not institute more
than one suit for a single cause of action. Anent the act of splitting a single cause of action, Section
4 of Rule 2 explicitly states that [i]f two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause
of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.
In Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., 645 SCRA 205 (2011), the Court held that [t]he
well-entrenched rule is that a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a different
method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of
action shall not be twice litigated. [Philippine National Bank vs. Gateway Property Holdings,
Inc., 666 SCRA 251(2012)]
Litis Pendentia as a ground for dismissal, requisites
As a ground for a motion to dismiss a complaint or any other pleading asserting a claim, litis
pendentia is provided for under Section 1(e), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which reads: Section 1.
Grounds.Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: x x x x (e) That there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. As we held in Dotmatrix
Trading v. Legaspi, 604 SCRA 431 (2009), [l]itis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means a
pending suit and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant.
As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are
pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes
unnecessary and vexatious. We further emphasized in Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation, 498
SCRA 613 (2006), that [t]here is litis pendentia or another action pendente lite if the following
requisites are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests
in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered
in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action
under consideration. [Philippine National Bank vs. Gateway Property Holdings, Inc., 666 SCRA
251(2012)]
Joinder
of
actions
By
a
joinder
of
actions,
or
more
properly,
a
joinder
of
causes
of
action
is
meant
the
uniting
of
two
or
more
demands
or
rights
of
action
in
one
action,
the
statement
of
more
than
one
cause
of
action
in
a
declaration.
It
is
the
union
of
two
or
more
civil
causes
of
action,
each
of
which
could
be
made
the
basis
of
a
separate
suit,
in
the
same
complaint,
declaration
or
petition.
A
plaintiff
may
under
certain
circumstances
join
several
distinct
demands,
controversies
or
rights
of
action
in
one
declaration,
complaint
or
petition.
[Ada
vs.
Baylon,
678
SCRA
293(2012)]
Page
8
of
26
Misjoinder of causes of action
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the power,
acting upon the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the severance of the misjoined
cause of action to be proceeded with separately. However, if there is no objection to the improper
joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there exists no bar in the
simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes of action. [Ada vs. Baylon, 678 SCRA
293(2012)]
Indispensable
Parties
The
nature
of
the
solidary
obligation
under
the
surety
does
not
make
one
an
indispensable
party.
An
indispensable
party
is
a
party-in-interest
without
whom
no
final
determination
can
be
had
of
an
action,
and
who
shall
be
joined
mandatorily
either
as
plaintiffs
or
defendants.
The
presence
of
indispensable
parties
is
necessary
to
vest
the
court
with
jurisdiction,
thus,
without
their
presence
to
a
suit
or
proceeding,
the
judgment
of
a
court
cannot
attain
real
finality.
The
absence
of
an
indispensable
party
renders
all
subsequent
actions
of
the
court
null
and
void
for
want
of
authority
to
act,
not
only
as
to
the
absent
parties
but
even
as
to
those
present.
[Living
@
Sense,
Inc.
vs.
Malayan
Insurance
Company,
Inc.,
682
SCRA
59(2012)]
Failure
to
implead
an
indispensable
party
Failure
to
implead
an
indispensable
party
is
not
a
ground
for
the
dismissal
of
an
action,
as
the
remedy
in
such
case
is
to
implead
the
party
claimed
to
be
indispensable,
considering
that
parties
may
be
added
by
order
of
the
court,
on
motion
of
the
party
or
on
its
own
initiative
at
any
stage
of
the
action.
[Living
@
Sense,
Inc.
vs.
Malayan
Insurance
Company,
Inc.,
682
SCRA
59(2012)]
Class Suit, necessary elements
The necessary elements for the maintenance of a class suit are: 1) the subject matter of controversy
is one of common or general interest to many persons; 2) the parties affected are so numerous that
it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are
sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all
concerned. In this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters and motorists who use La
Paz Road. As succinctly stated by the CA: The subject matter of the instant case, i.e., the closure and
excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be of common or general interest to many
persons. The records reveal that numerous individuals have filed manifestations with the lower
court, conveying their intention to join private respondents in the suit and claiming that they are
similarly situated with private respondents for they were also prejudiced by the acts of petitioners
in closing and excavating the La Paz Road. Moreover, the individuals sought to be represented by
private respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties
and be named individually as plaintiffs in the complaint. These individuals claim to be residents of
various barangays in Bian, Laguna and other barangays in San Pedro, Laguna. [Juana Complex I
Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., 667 SCRA 440(2012)]
Page 9 of 26
Defective verification/certification against forum-shopping, when given due
course
On the issue of the Verification/Certification, the court has the power to give due course to the
complaint even with the supposed defect, if special circumstances warrant. Even assuming
arguendo, that the form used to show Mr. Kurebayashis authority to execute the Verification and
Certification Against Forum Shopping is defective, petitioner should bear in mind that this Court
may relax the application of procedural rules for the greater interest of substantial justice. This case
is one of those that deserves a more lenient application of procedural rules, considering that it
affects one of the most important public utilities of our country.
In Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., this Court has already stated that
these cases involving the construction and operation of the countrys premier international airport,
has attained transcendental importance. Therefore, the Court sees it fit to relax the rules in this
case to arrive at a full settlement of the parties claims and avoid further delay in the administration
of justice. [Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. vs. Takenaka Corporation, 675 SCRA
674(2012)]
Judgments
by
default
On
countless
occasions,
the
Court
ruled
that,
generally,
judgments
by
default
are
looked
upon
with
disfavor
and
are
frowned
upon
as
contrary
to
public
policy.
An
example
here
would
be
the
case
of
Regalado
P.
Samartino
v.
Leonor
B.
Raon,
383
SCRA
664
(2002),
where
the
Court
stated:
The
trial
court
should
not
have
been
too
rash
in
declaring
petitioner
in
default,
considering
it
had
actual
notice
of
valid
reasons
that
prevented
him
from
answering.
Well-settled
is
the
rule
that
courts
should
be
liberal
in
setting
aside
orders
of
default
for
default
judgments
are
frowned
upon,
unless
in
cases
where
it
clearly
appears
that
the
reopening
of
the
case
is
intended
for
delay.
The
issuance
of
orders
of
default
should
be
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule,
to
be
allowed
only
in
clear
cases
of
obstinate
refusal
by
the
defendant
to
comply
with
the
orders
of
the
trial
court.
Suits
should
as
much
as
possible
be
decided
on
the
merits
and
not
on
technicalities.
[Aberca
vs.
Ver,
668
SCRA
173(2012)]
Failure
to
prosecute
Under
Section
3,
Rule
17
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure,
as
amended,
the
failure
on
the
part
of
the
plaintiff,
without
any
justifiable
cause,
to
comply
with
any
order
of
the
court
or
the
Rules,
or
to
prosecute
his
action
for
an
unreasonable
length
of
time,
may
result
in
the
dismissal
of
the
complaint
either
motu
proprio
or
on
motion
by
the
defendant.
The
failure
of
a
plaintiff
to
prosecute
the
action
without
any
justifiable
cause
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time
will
give
rise
to
the
presumption
that
he
is
no
longer
interested
to
obtain
from
the
court
the
relief
prayed
for
in
his
complaint;
hence,
the
court
is
authorized
to
order
the
dismissal
of
the
complaint
on
its
own
motion
or
on
motion
of
the
defendants.
The
presumption
is
not,
by
any
means,
conclusive
because
the
plaintiff,
on
a
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
order
of
dismissal,
may
allege
and
establish
a
justifiable
cause
for
such
failure.
The
burden
to
show
that
there
are
compelling
reasons
that
would
make
a
dismissal
of
the
case
unjustified
is
on
the
petitioners.
[Eloisa
Merchandising,
Inc.
vs.
Banco
de
Oro
Universal
Bank,
672
SCRA
533(2012)]
Page
10
of
26
Service of pleadings, recognized modes
To stress, the only modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other
papers allowed by the rules are personal service, service by mail and substituted service if either
personal service or service by mail cannot be made, as stated in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court. Nowhere under this rule is service of notice to file answer by publication is
mentioned, much less recognized. Furthermore, the Court would like to point out that service by
publication only applies to service of summons stated under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court where
the methods of service of summons in civil cases are: (1) personal service; (2) substituted service;
and (3) service by publication. Similarly, service by publication can apply to judgments, final orders
and resolutions as provided under Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows: SEC. 9.
Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions.Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be
served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by publication has failed to
appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him
also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party. [Aberca vs. Ver, 668 SCRA 173(2012)]
Mandatory nature of rules on modes of service of pleadings
The basic rules on modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other
papers are mandatory in nature and, therefore, must be strictly observed. The Court is not unaware
of the inherent power of courts to control its proceedings. Nonetheless, the exercise of such
inherent power must not violate basic court procedures. More importantly, it must not disregard
ones basic constitutional right to procedural due process. [Aberca vs. Ver, 668 SCRA 173(2012)]
Personal service of summons, first option
Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, service of summons may
be made through personal service, that is, summons shall be served by handing to the defendant in
person a copy thereof, or if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If the
defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, it is then that
substituted service may be made. Personal service of summons should and always be the first
option, and it is only when the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the
process server resort to substituted service. [Planters Development Bank vs. Chandumal, 680
SCRA 269(2012)]
Substituted service of summons, requisites
In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21 (2006), the Court detailed the requisites for a valid
substituted service of summons, summed up as follows: (1) impossibility of prompt personal
servicethe party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that the defendant
cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service; (2) specific details in the
returnthe sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service; (3) a person of suitable age and discretionthe
sheriff must determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of
Page 11 of 26
legal
age,
what
the
recipients
relationship
with
the
defendant
is,
and
whether
said
person
comprehends
the
significance
of
the
receipt
of
the
summons
and
his
duty
to
immediately
deliver
it
to
the
defendant
or
at
least
notify
the
defendant
of
said
receipt
of
summons,
which
matters
must
be
clearly
and
specifically
described
in
the
Return
of
Summons;
and
(4)
a
competent
person
in
charge,
who
must
have
sufficient
knowledge
to
understand
the
obligation
of
the
defendant
in
the
summons,
its
importance,
and
the
prejudicial
effects
arising
from
inaction
on
the
summons.
[Planters
Development
Bank
vs.
Chandumal,
680
SCRA
269(2012)]
Three-day
notice
rule
The
law
is
clear
that
it
intends
for
the
other
party
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
written
motion
at
least
three
days
before
the
date
set
for
its
hearing.
The
purpose
of
the
three
(3)-day
notice
requirement,
which
was
established
not
for
the
benefit
of
the
movant
but
rather
for
the
adverse
party,
is
to
avoid
surprises
upon
the
latter
and
to
grant
it
sufficient
time
to
study
the
motion
and
to
enable
it
to
meet
the
arguments
interposed
therein.
In
Preysler,
Jr.
v.
Manila
Southcoast
Development
Corporation,
621
SCRA
636
(2010),
the
Court
restated
the
ruling
that
the
date
of
the
hearing
should
be
at
least
three
days
after
receipt
of
the
notice
of
hearing
by
the
other
parties.
It
is
not,
however,
a
hard
and
fast
rule.
Where
a
party
has
been
given
the
opportunity
to
be
heard,
the
time
to
study
the
motion
and
oppose
it,
there
is
compliance
with
the
rule.
[United
Pulp
and
Paper
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Acropolis
Central
Guaranty
Corporation,
664
SCRA
65(2012)]
Pre-trial, appearance of parties
Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of the parties and their counsel to
appear at the pre-trial. The effect of their failure to do so is provided in Section 5 of Rule 18,
particularly: Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear.The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The
dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the
part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the
court to render judgment on the basis thereof. [Suico Industrial Corp. vs. Lagura-Yap, 680 SCRA
145(2012)]
Pre-trial,
failure
to
file
the
pre-trial
brief
Under
Section
6,
Rule
18,
the
failure
to
file
a
pre-trial
brief
when
required
by
law
produces
the
same
effect
as
failure
to
attend
the
pre-trial,
to
wit:
Sec.
6.
Pre-trial
brief.The
parties
shall
file
with
the
court
and
serve
on
the
adverse
party,
in
such
manner
as
shall
ensure
their
receipt
thereof
at
least
three
(3)
days
before
the
date
of
the
pre-trial,
their
respective
pre-trial
briefs
which
shall
contain,
among
others:
x
x
x
x
Failure
to
file
the
pre-trial
brief
shall
have
the
same
effect
as
failure
to
appear
at
the
pre-trial.
[Suico
Industrial
Corp.
vs.
Lagura-Yap,
680
SCRA
145(2012)]
Pre-trial, justification for a court to suspend strict adherence to procedural
rules
Page 12 of 26
Instructive
on
this
point
are
the
guidelines
we
applied
in
Bank
of
the
Philippine
Islands
v.
Dando,
598
SCRA
378
(2009),
wherein
we
cited
the
reasons
that
may
provide
a
justification
for
a
court
to
suspend
a
strict
adherence
to
procedural
rules,
namely:
(a)
matters
of
life,
liberty,
honor
or
property;
(b)
the
existence
of
special
or
compelling
circumstances;
(c)
the
merits
of
the
case;
(d)
a
cause
not
entirely
attributable
to
the
fault
or
negligence
of
the
party
favored
by
the
suspension
of
the
rules;
(e)
a
lack
of
any
showing
that
the
review
sought
is
merely
frivolous
and
dilatory;
and
(f)
the
fact
that
the
other
party
will
not
be
unjustly
prejudiced
thereby.
[Suico
Industrial
Corp.
vs.
Lagura-Yap,
680
SCRA
145(2012)]
Intervention
Jurisprudence
describes
intervention
as
a
remedy
by
which
a
third
party,
not
originally
impleaded
in
the
proceedings,
becomes
a
litigant
therein
to
enable
him,
her
or
it
to
protect
or
preserve
a
right
or
interest
which
may
be
affected
by
such
proceedings.
The
right
to
intervene
is
not
an
absolute
right;
it
may
only
be
permitted
by
the
court
when
the
movant
establishes
facts
which
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
law
authorizing
it.
[The
Board
of
Regents
of
the
Mindanao
State
University
vs.
Osop,
666
SCRA
467(2012)]
Intervention not a matter of right
It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the trial courts sound
discretion. The trial court must not only determine if the requisite legal interest is present, but also
take into consideration the delay and the consequent prejudice to the original parties that the
intervention will cause. Both requirements must concur, as the first requirement on legal interest is
not more important than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result. To help
ensure that delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene, the Rules also
explicitly say that intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
[Ongco vs. Dalisay, 677 SCRA 232(2012)]
Modes of discovery, natue and purpose of production and examination of
documents
The purpose of the production and examination of documents is to elicit information or secure
evidence from persons suspected of having possession of, or knowledge of properties suspected of
belonging to the estate of the deceased. The procedure is inquisitorial in nature, designed as an
economical and efficient mode of discovering properties of the estate. [Ty vs. Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank, 675 SCRA 352(2012)]
Demurrer
to
evidence
A
demurrer
to
evidence
is
defined
as
an
objection
by
one
of
the
parties
in
an
action,
to
the
effect
that
the
evidence
which
his
adversary
produced
is
insufficient
in
point
of
law,
whether
true
or
not,
to
make
out
a
case
or
sustain
the
issue.
We
have
also
held
that
a
demurrer
to
evidence
authorizes
a
judgment
on
the
merits
of
the
case
without
the
defendant
having
to
submit
evidence
on
his
part,
as
he
would
ordinarily
have
to
do,
if
plaintiffs
evidence
shows
that
he
is
not
entitled
to
the
relief
sought.
[Oropesa
vs.
Oropesa,
671
SCRA
174(2012)]
Page
13
of
26
Judgment on the pleadings
Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are
issues generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no
ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue. The
answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the
complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by confessing the
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. If an answer does in fact specifically
deny the material averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of
new matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly,
would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would
naturally be improper. [First Leverage and Services Group, Inc. vs. Solid Builders, Inc., 675 SCRA
407(2012)]
Summary
judgments
In
the
case
of
a
summary
judgment,
issues
apparently
exist
i.e.,
facts
are
asserted
in
the
complaint
regarding
which
there
is
as
yet
no
admission,
disavowal
or
qualification;
or
specific
denials
or
affirmative
defenses
are
in
truth
set
out
in
the
answerbut
the
issues
thus
arising
from
the
pleadings
are
sham,
fictitious
or
not
genuine,
as
shown
by
affidavits,
depositions,
or
admissions.
[First
Leverage
and
Services
Group,
Inc.
vs.
Solid
Builders,
Inc.,
675
SCRA
407(2012)]
Fresh period rule
In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633 (2005), decided by this Court on September 14, 2005,
we ruled that to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules of Court and to afford
litigants a fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period
of fifteen (15) days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the
order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Said fresh period rule also
aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform. It eradicates the confusion as to when the
fifteen (15)-day appeal period should be countedfrom receipt of notice of judgment or from
receipt of notice of final order appealed from. [Suico Industrial Corp. vs. Lagura-Yap, 680 SCRA
145(2012)]
Annulment
of
judgments
The
remedy
of
annulment
of
judgment
is
only
available
under
certain
exceptional
circumstances
as
this
is
adverse
to
the
concept
of
immutability
of
final
judgments:
Annulment
of
judgment
is
a
recourse
equitable
in
character,
allowed
only
in
exceptional
cases
as
where
there
is
no
available
or
other
adequate
remedy.
Rule
47
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure,
as
amended,
governs
actions
for
annulment
of
judgments
or
final
orders
and
resolutions,
and
Section
2
thereof
explicitly
provides
only
two
grounds
for
annulment
of
judgment,
i.e.,
extrinsic
fraud
and
lack
of
jurisdiction.
The
underlying
reason
is
traceable
to
the
notion
that
annulling
final
judgments
goes
against
the
grain
of
finality
of
judgment.
Litigation
must
end
and
terminate
sometime
and
somewhere,
and
it
is
Page
14
of
26
essential
to
an
effective
administration
of
justice
that
once
a
judgment
has
become
final,
the
issue
or
cause
involved
therein
should
be
laid
to
rest.
The
basic
rule
of
finality
of
judgment
is
grounded
on
the
fundamental
principle
of
public
policy
and
sound
practice
that
at
the
risk
of
occasional
error,
the
judgment
of
courts
and
the
award
of
quasi-judicial
agencies
must
become
final
at
some
definite
date
fixed
by
law.
[Antonino
vs.
Register
of
Deeds
of
Makati
City,
674
SCRA
227(2012)]
Extrinsic
fraud
Only
void
judgments,
by
reason
of
extrinsic
fraud
or
the
courts
lack
of
jurisdiction,
are
susceptible
to
being
annulled.
The
law
sanctions
the
annulment
of
certain
judgments
which,
though
final,
are
ultimately
void.
Annulment
of
judgment
is
an
equitable
principle
not
because
it
allows
a
party-litigant
another
opportunity
to
reopen
a
judgment
that
has
long
lapsed
into
finality
but
because
it
enables
him
to
be
discharged
from
the
burden
of
being
bound
to
a
judgment
that
is
an
absolute
nullity
to
begin
with.
[Antonino
vs.
Register
of
Deeds
of
Makati
City,
674
SCRA
227(2012)]
Discretionary execution of judgment
There is no reason to dispute the COMELECs authority to order discretionary execution of
judgment in view of the fact that the suppletory application of the Rules of Court is expressly
sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Under Section 2, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal may be issued by an appellate court after the trial
court has lost jurisdiction. In Batul v. Bayron, 424 SCRA 26 (2004), we stressed the import of the
provision vis--vis election cases when we held that judgments in election cases which may be
executed pending appeal includes those decided by trial courts and those rendered by the
COMELEC whether in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. [Sobejana-Condon vs.
Commission on Elections, 678 SCRA 267(2012)]
Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons
It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against property
incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor, and if property belonging to any third person is
mistakenly levied upon to answer for another mans indebtedness, such person has all the right to
challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. Section 16,
Rule 39 thereof specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies of either
terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not
belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent separate action to vindicate their
claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. However, a person other than
the judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over the levied properties is not precluded
from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his claim [Gagoomal vs. Villacorta, 663 SCRA
444(2012)]
Preliminary injunction, hearing and prior notice requirement
Page
15
of
26
Writs
of
preliminary
injunction
shall
only
be
issued
with
hearing
and
prior
notice
to
the
party
or
person
sought
to
be
enjoined.
Should
great
or
irreparable
injury
result
to
the
applicant
based
on
affidavits
or
the
verified
application
before
the
matter
can
be
heard
with
prior
notice
to
the
parties,
the
court
may
issue
a
temporary
restraining
order
effective
for
a
period
of
20
days.
Within
the
20-
day
period,
the
court
must
notify
the
other
party
and
order
him
to
show
cause
why
injunction
should
not
be
granted.
[Crisologo
vs.
Omelio,
682
SCRA
154(2012)]
Writs
of
preliminary
injunction
shall
only
be
issued
with
hearing
and
prior
notice
to
the
party
or
person
sought
to
be
enjoined.
Should
great
or
irreparable
injury
result
to
the
applicant
based
on
affidavits
or
the
verified
application
before
the
matter
can
be
heard
with
prior
notice
to
the
parties,
the
court
may
issue
a
temporary
restraining
order
effective
for
a
period
of
20
days.
Within
the
20-
day
period,
the
court
must
notify
the
other
party
and
order
him
to
show
cause
why
injunction
should
not
be
granted.
[Crisologo
vs.
Omelio,
682
SCRA
154(2012)]
Preliminary injunction, the strong arm of equity
A petition for a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and one who comes to claim for
equity must do so with clean hands: Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he who must apply
for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity
are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with
clean hands. x x x. [Palm Tree Estates, Inc. vs. Philippine National Bank, 682 SCRA 194(2012)]
Preliminary injunction, duty of the court taking cognizance of petition
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which must be granted only in the face of
actual and existing substantial rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ
of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the requisites necessary for the grant of an
injunction are present in the case before it. In the absence of the same, and where facts are shown
to be wanting in bringing the matter within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must
be struck down for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion. [Palm Tree Estates, Inc. vs.
Philippine National Bank, 682 SCRA 194(2012)]
Declaratory relief, requisites
The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there must be a justiciable
controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the
party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue
involved must be ripe for judicial determination. [Commissioners of Customs vs. Hypermix Feeds
Corporation, 664 SCRA 666(2012)]
Certiorari
Page
16
of
26
As
a
rule,
misapplication
of
facts
and
evidence,
and
erroneous
conclusions
based
on
evidence
do
not,
by
the
mere
fact
that
errors
were
committed,
rise
to
the
level
of
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
That
an
abuse
itself
must
be
grave
must
be
amply
demonstrated
since
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court,
no
less,
will
be
affected.
We
have
previously
held
that
the
mere
fact,
too,
that
a
court
erroneously
decides
a
case
does
not
necessarily
deprive
it
of
jurisdiction.
[Ysidoro
vs.
Leonardo-Castro,
665
SCRA
1(2012)]
Expropriation, measure of just compensation
In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the
property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain, but the
owners loss. The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation and to
convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be
real, substantial, full and ample. The constitutional limitation of just compensation is considered
to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly defined as the price fixed by the
seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition; or the fair
value of the property; as between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time
of the actual taking by the government. [Republic vs. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., 664 SCRA
233(2012)]
Expropriation, excavated soil has no separate value from expropriated
property
There is no legal basis to separate the value of the excavated soil from that of the expropriated
properties, contrary to what the trial court did. In the context of expropriation proceedings, the soil
has no value separate from that of the expropriated land. Just compensation ordinarily refers to the
value of the land to compensate for what the owner actually loses. Such value could only be that
which prevailed at the time of the taking. [Republic vs. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., 664 SCRA
233(2012)]
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, summary nature
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an
expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property
involved. The avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have
purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of
preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a
long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community. The said
objectives can only be achieved by according the proceedings a summary nature. However, its being
summary poses a limitation on the nature of issues that can be determined and fully ventilated. It is
for this reason that the proceedings are concentrated on the issue on possession. [Heirs of Jose
Maligaso, Sr. vs. Encinas, 674 SCRA 215(2012)]
Distinctions
among
actions
for
recovery
of
possession
of
real
property
Page
17
of
26
What
really
distinguishes
an
action
for
unlawful
detainer
from
a
possessory
action
(accion
publiciana)
and
from
a
reinvindicatory
action
(accion
reinvindicatoria)
is
that
the
first
is
limited
to
the
question
of
possession
de
facto.
Unlawful
detainer
suits
(accion
interdictal)
together
with
forcible
entry
are
the
two
forms
of
ejectment
suit
that
may
be
filed
to
recover
possession
of
real
property.
Aside
from
the
summary
action
of
ejectment,
accion
publiciana
or
the
plenary
action
to
recover
the
right
of
possession
and
accion
reinvindicatoria
or
the
action
to
recover
ownership
which
also
includes
recovery
of
possession,
make
up
the
three
kinds
of
actions
to
judicially
recover
possession.
Under
Section
3
of
Rule
70
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
the
Summary
Procedure
governs
the
two
forms
of
ejectment
suit,
the
purpose
being
to
provide
an
expeditious
means
of
protecting
actual
possession
or
right
to
possession
of
the
property.
They
are
not
processes
to
determine
the
actual
title
to
an
estate.
If
at
all,
inferior
courts
are
empowered
to
rule
on
the
question
of
ownership
raised
by
the
defendant
in
such
suits,
only
to
resolve
the
issue
of
possession
and
its
determination
on
the
ownership
issue
is
not
conclusive
[Casilang,
Sr.
vs.
Casilang-Dizon,
G.R.
No.
180269(2013)]
Accion
interdictal
One
of
the
three
kinds
of
action
for
the
recovery
of
possession
of
real
property
is
accion
interdictal,
or
an
ejectment
proceeding
...
which
may
be
either
that
for
forcible
entry
(detentacion)
or
unlawful
detainer
(desahucio),
which
is
a
summary
action
for
the
recovery
of
physical
possession
where
the
dispossession
has
not
lasted
for
more
than
one
year,
and
should
be
brought
in
the
proper
inferior
court.
In
ejectment
proceedings,
the
courts
resolve
the
basic
question
of
who
is
entitled
to
physical
possession
of
the
premises,
possession
referring
to
possession
de
facto,
and
not
possession
de
jure.
[Corpuz
vs.
Agustin,
663
SCRA
350(2012)]
Sufficient allegations in ejectment cases
In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party
clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are
summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction
without resort to parol evidence. Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real
property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his
right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in
unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the
right to possess. An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction of which lies in
the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought within one
year from the date of last demand and the issue in said case is the right to physical possession. ... ... ...
In Cabrera v. Getaruela, the Court held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for
unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially, possession of property by the defendant
was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal
upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession; (3)
thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. [Corpuz vs. Agustin, 663 SCRA
350(2012)]
Remedies from a judgment in direct and indirect contempt proceedings
Page 18 of 26
Rule
71,
Secs.
2
and
11
of
the
Rules
of
Court
lay
down
the
proper
remedies
from
a
judgment
in
direct
and
indirect
contempt
proceedings,
respectively.
For
direct
contempt,
the
Rules
states:
Sec.
2.
Remedy
therefrom.The
person
adjudged
in
direct
contempt
by
any
court
may
not
appeal
therefrom,
but
may
avail
himself
of
the
remedies
of
certiorari
or
prohibition.
The
execution
of
the
judgment
shall
be
suspended
pending
resolution
of
such
petition,
provided
such
person
files
a
bond
fixed
by
the
court
which
rendered
the
judgment
and
conditioned
that
he
will
abide
by
and
perform
the
judgment
should
the
petition
be
decided
against
him.
In
indirect
contempt
proceedings,
the
Rules
states:
Sec.
11.
Review
of
judgment
or
final
order;
bond
for
stay.The
judgment
or
final
order
of
a
court
in
a
case
of
indirect
contempt
may
be
appealed
to
the
proper
court
as
in
criminal
cases.
But
execution
of
the
judgment
or
final
order
shall
not
be
suspended
until
a
bond
is
filed
by
the
person
adjudged
in
contempt,
in
an
amount
fixed
by
the
court
from
which
the
appeal
is
taken,
conditioned
that
if
the
appeal
be
decided
against
him
he
will
abide
by
and
perform
the
judgment
or
final
order.
[Baculi
vs.
Belen,
681
SCRA
489(2012)]
SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
Escheat
Escheat
proceedings
refer
to
the
judicial
process
in
which
the
state,
by
virtue
of
its
sovereignty,
steps
in
and
claims
abandoned,
left
vacant,
or
unclaimed
property,
without
there
being
an
interested
person
having
a
legal
claim
thereto.
In
the
case
of
dormant
accounts,
the
state
inquires
into
the
status,
custody,
and
ownership
of
the
unclaimed
balance
to
determine
whether
the
inactivity
was
brought
about
by
the
fact
of
death
or
absence
of
or
abandonment
by
the
depositor.
If
after
the
proceedings
the
property
remains
without
a
lawful
owner
interested
to
claim
it,
the
property
shall
be
reverted
to
the
state
to
forestall
an
open
invitation
to
self-service
by
the
first
comers.
However,
if
interested
parties
have
come
forward
and
lain
claim
to
the
property,
the
courts
shall
determine
whether
the
credit
or
deposit
should
pass
to
the
claimants
or
be
forfeited
in
favor
of
the
state.
We
emphasize
that
escheat
is
not
a
proceeding
to
penalize
depositors
for
failing
to
deposit
to
or
withdraw
from
their
accounts.
It
is
a
proceeding
whereby
the
state
compels
the
surrender
to
it
of
unclaimed
deposit
balances
when
there
is
substantial
ground
for
a
belief
that
they
have
been
abandoned,
forgotten,
or
without
an
owner.
[Rizal
Commercial
Banking
Corporation
vs.
Hi-Tri
Development
Corporation,
672
SCRA
514(2012)]
Guardianship
Guardianship
is
one
in
which
one
person,
called
a
guardian
acts
for
another
called
the
ward
whom
the
law
regards
as
incapable
of
managing
his
own
affairs.
A
guardianship
is
designed
to
further
the
wards
well-being,
not
that
of
the
guardian.
It
is
intended
to
preserve
the
wards
property,
as
well
as
to
render
any
assistance
that
the
ward
may
personally
require.
It
has
been
stated
that
while
custody
involves
immediate
care
and
control,
guardianship
indicates
not
only
those
responsibilities,
but
those
of
one
in
loco
parentis
as
well.
[Oropesa
vs.
Oropesa,
671
SCRA
174(2012)]
Page
19
of
26
Writ
of
amparo
The
writ
of
amparo
is
an
independent
and
summary
remedy
that
provides
rapid
judicial
relief
to
protect
the
peoples
right
to
life,
liberty
and
security.
Having
been
originally
intended
as
a
response
to
the
alarming
cases
of
extrajudicial
killings
and
enforced
disappearances
in
the
country,
it
serves
both
preventive
and
curative
roles
to
address
the
said
human
rights
violations.
It
is
preventive
in
that
it
breaks
the
expectation
of
impunity
in
the
commission
of
these
offenses,
and
it
is
curative
in
that
it
facilitates
the
subsequent
punishment
of
perpetrators
by
inevitably
leading
to
subsequent
investigation
and
action.
As
it
stands,
the
writ
of
amparo
is
confined
only
to
cases
of
extrajudicial
killings
and
enforced
disappearances,
or
to
threats
thereof.
Considering
that
this
remedy
is
aimed
at
addressing
these
serious
violations
of
or
threats
to
the
right
to
life,
liberty
and
security,
it
cannot
be
issued
on
amorphous
and
uncertain
grounds,
or
in
cases
where
the
alleged
threat
has
ceased
and
is
no
longer
imminent
or
continuing.
Instead,
it
must
be
granted
judiciously
so
as
not
to
dilute
the
extraordinary
and
remedial
character
of
the
writ,
thus:
The
privilege
of
the
writ
of
amparo
is
envisioned
basically
to
protect
and
guarantee
the
rights
to
life,
liberty,
and
security
of
persons,
free
from
fears
and
threats
that
vitiate
the
quality
of
this
life.
It
is
an
extraordinary
writ
conceptualized
and
adopted
in
light
of
and
in
response
to
the
prevalence
of
extra-legal
killings
and
enforced
disappearances.
Accordingly,
the
remedy
ought
to
be
resorted
to
and
granted
judiciously,
lest
the
ideal
sought
by
the
Amparo
Rule
be
diluted
and
undermined
by
the
indiscriminate
filing
of
amparo
petitions
for
purposes
less
than
the
desire
to
secure
amparo
reliefs
and
protection
and/or
on
the
basis
of
unsubstantiated
allegations.
[Lozada,
Jr.
vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo,
670
SCRA
545(2012)]
In
amparo
actions,
petitioners
must
establish
their
claims
by
substantial
evidence,
and
they
cannot
merely
rely
on
the
supposed
failure
of
respondents
to
prove
either
their
defenses
or
their
exercise
of
extraordinary
diligence.
In
this
case,
the
totality
of
the
evidence
presented
by
petitioners
fails
to
meet
the
requisite
evidentiary
threshold,
and
the
privilege
of
the
writ
of
amparo
has
already
been
rendered
moot
and
academic
by
the
cessation
of
the
restraint
to
Lozadas
liberty.
[Lozada,
Jr.
vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo,
670
SCRA
545(2012)]
Elements of enforced disappearances
From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can derive the following elements
that constitute it: (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of
liberty; (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State
or a political organization; (c) that it be followed by the State or political organizations refusal to
acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo
petition; and, (d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection
of the law for a prolonged period of time. [Navia vs. Pardico, 673 SCRA 618(2012)]
Substantial evidence in writ of amparo
It is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons
subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and proved by substantial
Page 20 of 26
evidence
that
the
disappearance
was
carried
out
by,
or
with
the
authorization,
support
or
acquiescence
of,
the
State
or
a
political
organization,
followed
by
a
refusal
to
acknowledge
the
same
or
give
information
on
the
fate
or
whereabouts
of
said
missing
persons,
with
the
intention
of
removing
them
from
the
protection
of
the
law
for
a
prolonged
period
of
time.
Simply
put,
the
petitioner
in
an
amparo
case
has
the
burden
of
proving
by
substantial
evidence
the
indispensable
element
of
government
participation.
Government acquiescence in enforced disappearance required to be
established in amparo petition
But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is
likewise essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect
authorization, support or acquiescence of the government. [Navia vs. Pardico, 673 SCRA
618(2012)]
Writ of habeas data
The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image,
privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to
enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a persons right to
control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being
collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. It must be emphasized that in
order for the privilege of the writ to be granted, there must exist a nexus between the right to
privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. [Gamboa vs. Chan,
677 SCRA 385(2012)]
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Miranda warnings must be given to traffic violators
In Berkemer, the U.S. Court also noted that the Miranda warnings must also be given to a person
apprehended due to a traffic violation: The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to
ensure that the police do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the
inherently compelling pressures generated by the custodial setting itself, which work to
undermine the individuals will to resist, and as much as possible to free courts from the task of
scrutinizing individual cases to try to determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were
voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons suspected
of misdemeanors as they are by questioning of persons suspected of felonies. If it were true that
petitioner was already deemed arrested when he was flagged down for a traffic violation and
while he was waiting for his ticket, then there would have been no need for him to be arrested for a
second timeafter the police officers allegedly discovered the drugsas he was already in their
custody. [Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421(2012)]
Page
21
of
26
Roadside
questioning
In
Berkemer
v.
McCarty,
the
United
States
(U.S.)
Supreme
Court
discussed
at
length
whether
the
roadside
questioning
of
a
motorist
detained
pursuant
to
a
routine
traffic
stop
should
be
considered
custodial
interrogation.
The
Court
held
that,
such
questioning
does
not
fall
under
custodial
interrogation,
nor
can
it
be
considered
a
formal
arrest,
by
virtue
of
the
nature
of
the
questioning,
the
expectations
of
the
motorist
and
the
officer,
and
the
length
of
time
the
procedure
is
conducted.
[Luz
vs.
People,
667
SCRA
421(2012)]
Voluntary consent to search
Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the
totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of
the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the
defendant; (2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location; (3) whether the
defendant objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the education and intelligence of the
defendant; (5) the presence [Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421(2012)]
In Knowles v. Iowa,the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a police officer stops a person for
speeding and correspondingly issues a citation instead of arresting the latter, this procedure does
not authorize the officer to conduct a full search of the car. The Court therein held that there was no
justification for a full-blown search when the officer does not arrest the motorist. Instead, police
officers may only conduct minimal intrusions, such as ordering the motorist to alight from the car
or doing a patdown. [Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421(2012)]
Purpose
of
arraignment
Arraignment
is
the
formal
mode
and
manner
of
implementing
the
constitutional
right
of
an
accused
to
be
informed
of
the
nature
and
cause
of
the
accusation
against
him.
The
purpose
of
arraignment
is,
thus,
to
apprise
the
accused
of
the
possible
loss
of
freedom,
even
of
his
life,
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
crime
imputed
to
him,
or
at
the
very
least
to
inform
him
of
why
the
prosecuting
arm
of
the
State
is
mobilized
against
him.
As
an
indispensable
requirement
of
due
process,
an
arraignment
cannot
be
regarded
lightly
or
brushed
aside
peremptorily.
Otherwise,
absence
of
arraignment
results
in
the
nullity
of
the
proceedings
before
the
trial
court.
[Taglay
vs.
Daray,
678
SCRA
640(2012)]
Elements of double jeopardy
The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned
and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed
without his express consent. [People vs. Atienza, 673 SCRA 470(2012)]
Page 22 of 26
Right against double jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments of acquittal
through ordinary appeal and appeal by certiorari
As applied to judgments rendered in criminal cases, unlike a review via a Rule 65 petition, only
judgments of conviction can be reviewed in an ordinary appeal or a Rule 45 petition. As we
explained in People v. Nazareno, 595 SCRA 438 (2009), the constitutional right of the accused
against double jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments of acquittal through the remedies of
ordinary appeal and a Rule 45 petition, thus: The Constitution has expressly adopted the double
jeopardy policy and thus bars multiple criminal trials, thereby conclusively presuming that a
second trial would be unfair if the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a previous final
judgment. Further prosecution via an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is likewise barred
because the government has already been afforded a complete opportunity to prove the criminal
defendants culpability; after failing to persuade the court to enter a final judgment of conviction,
the underlying reasons supporting the constitutional ban on multiple trials applies and becomes
compelling. The reason is not only the defendants already established innocence at the first trial
where he had been placed in peril of conviction, but also the same untoward and prejudicial
consequences of a second trial initiated by a government who has at its disposal all the powers and
resources of the State. Unfairness and prejudice would necessarily result, as the government would
then be allowed another opportunity to persuade a second trier of the defendants guilt while
strengthening any weaknesses that had attended the first trial, all in a process where the
governments power and resources are once again employed against the defendants individual
means. That the second opportunity comes via an appeal does not make the effects any less
prejudicial by the standards of reason, justice and conscience. [Ysidoro vs. Leonardo-Castro, 665
SCRA 1(2012)]
When right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked
The rule against double jeopardy cannot be properly invoked in a Rule 65 petition, predicated on
two (2) exceptional grounds, namely: in a judgment of acquittal rendered with grave abuse of
discretion by the court; and where the prosecution had been deprived of due process. The rule
against double jeopardy does not apply in these instances because a Rule 65 petition does not
involve a review of facts and law on the merits in the manner done in an appeal. In certiorari
proceedings, judicial review does not examine and assess the evidence of the parties nor weigh the
probative value of the evidence. It does not include an inquiry on the correctness of the evaluation
of the evidence. A review under Rule 65 only asks the question of whether there has been a validly
rendered decision, not the question of whether the decision is legally correct. In other words, the
focus of the review is to determine whether the judgment is per se void on jurisdictional grounds.
[Ysidoro vs. Leonardo-Castro, 665 SCRA 1(2012)]
Mistrial
In
People
v.
Hon.
Tria-Tirona,
463
SCRA
462
(2005),
this
Court
reiterated
that
mistrial
is
the
only
exception
to
the
well-settled,
even
axiomatic,
principle
that
acquittal
is
immediately
final
and
cannot
be
appealed
on
the
ground
of
double
jeopardy.
This
Court
was
categorical
in
stating
that
a
re-examination
of
the
evidence
without
a
finding
of
mistrial
will
violate
the
right
to
repose
of
an
Page
23
of
26
accused,
which
is
what
is
protected
by
the
rule
against
double
jeopardy.
[People
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
Fourth
Division,
677
SCRA
575(2012)]
EVIDENCE
Judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments
Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be
presented and admitted in evidence. A 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. [Vda. de Catalan vs. Catalan-Lee, 665 SCRA 487(2012)]
Chain of custody rule
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would
then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. [People vs.
Posada, 667 SCRA 790(2012)]
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition. [People vs. Llanita, 682 SCRA 288(2012)]
Links to be proven to establish chain of custody
Page 24 of 26
First,
the
seizure
and
marking,
if
practicable,
of
the
illegal
drug
recovered
from
the
accused
by
the
apprehending
officer;
Second,
the
turnover
of
the
illegal
drug
seized
by
the
apprehending
officer
to
the
investigating
officer;
Third,
the
turnover
by
the
investigating
officer
of
the
illegal
drug
to
the
forensic
chemist
for
laboratory
examination;
and
Fourth,
the
turnover
and
submission
of
the
marked
illegal
drug
seized
by
the
forensic
chemist
to
the
court.
[People
vs.
Llanita,
682
SCRA
288(2012)]
Function of chain of custody
The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the
evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the
police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time
it was offered in evidence. [People vs. Llanita, 682 SCRA 288(2012)]
Dying
declaration
A
dying
declaration,
although
generally
inadmissible
as
evidence
due
to
its
hearsay
character,
may
nonetheless
be
admitted
when
the
following
requisites
concur,
namely:
(a)
that
the
declaration
must
concern
the
cause
and
surrounding
circumstances
of
the
declarants
death;
(b)
that
at
the
time
the
declaration
is
made,
the
declarant
is
under
a
consciousness
of
an
impending
death;
(c)
that
the
declarant
is
competent
as
a
witness;
and
(d)
that
the
declaration
is
offered
in
a
criminal
case
for
homicide,
murder,
or
parricide,
in
which
the
declarant
is
a
victim.
[People
vs.
Salafranca,
666
SCRA
501(2012)]
Entries in official records
In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lianga Bay and Community Multi-purpose
Cooperative, Inc., 374 SCRA 653 (2002), we explained that the following three (3) requisites must
concur for entries in official records to be admissible in evidence: (a) The entry was made by a
public officer, or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) It was made by the public
officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and (c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the
facts stated by him, which facts must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information. [Sabili vs. Commission on Elections, 670 SCRA 664(2012)]
PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
Writ of continuing mandamus
Page 25 of 26
The
new
Rules
of
Procedure
for
Environmental
Cases,
A.M.
No.
09-6-8-SC,
provides
a
relief
for
petitioner
under
the
writ
of
continuing
mandamus,
which
is
a
special
civil
action
that
may
be
availed
of
to
compel
the
performance
of
an
act
specifically
enjoined
by
law
and
which
provides
for
the
issuance
of
a
TEPO
as
an
auxiliary
remedy
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
writ
itself.
The
writ
of
continuing
mandamus
permits
the
court
to
retain
jurisdiction
after
judgment
in
order
to
ensure
the
successful
implementation
of
the
reliefs
mandated
under
the
courts
decision
and,
in
order
to
do
this,
the
court
may
compel
the
submission
of
compliance
reports
from
the
respondent
government
agencies
as
well
as
avail
of
other
means
to
monitor
compliance
with
its
decision.
Petitioner
had
three
options
where
to
file
this
case
under
the
rule:
the
Regional
Trial
Court
exercising
jurisdiction
over
the
territory
where
the
actionable
neglect
or
omission
occurred,
the
Court
of
Appeals,
or
this
Court.
Petitioner
had
no
other
plain,
speedy,
or
adequate
remedy
in
the
ordinary
course
of
law
to
determine
the
questions
of
unique
national
and
local
importance
raised
here
that
pertain
to
laws
and
rules
for
environmental
protection,
thus
it
was
justified
in
coming
to
this
Court.
[Boracay
Foundation,
Inc.
vs.
Province
of
Aklan,
674
SCRA
555(2012)]
Prior consultations and approval
Prior consultations and prior approval are required by law to have been conducted and secured by
the respondent Province. Accordingly, the information dissemination conducted months after the
ECC had already been issued was insufficient to comply with this requirement under the Local
Government Code. Had they been conducted properly, the prior public consultation should have
considered the ecological or environmental concerns of the stakeholders and studied measures
alternative to the project, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact or damage. In fact,
respondent Province once tried to obtain the favorable endorsement of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Malay, but this was denied by the latter. [Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of Aklan, 674
SCRA 555(2012)]
Page 26 of 26
Você também pode gostar
- Compromise Agreement BalduezaDocumento6 páginasCompromise Agreement BalduezaBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Bersamin - Doctrine MercDocumento7 páginasBersamin - Doctrine MercBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Angels We Have Heard On HighDocumento2 páginasAngels We Have Heard On HighLand10nAinda não há avaliações
- Note For CostumeDocumento1 páginaNote For CostumeBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- IPC SalaoDocumento125 páginasIPC SalaoBetson Cajayon80% (5)
- Derivative SuitDocumento13 páginasDerivative SuitBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Transpo CodalDocumento4 páginasTranspo CodalBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- UNA Legal KitDocumento87 páginasUNA Legal KitBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- 116) Final and Executory Judgment Can Be Annulled by Petition For Relief or Petition For Annulment of JudgmentDocumento1 página116) Final and Executory Judgment Can Be Annulled by Petition For Relief or Petition For Annulment of JudgmentBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- BP 22 NotesDocumento5 páginasBP 22 NotesBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- ANTI Fencing LawDocumento6 páginasANTI Fencing LawJan Velasco80% (5)
- NPC Vs AgroDocumento8 páginasNPC Vs AgroBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- UNA Legal KitDocumento87 páginasUNA Legal KitBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- 2nd AssignmentDocumento29 páginas2nd AssignmentBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Nikko Hotel Manila Garden Vs Roberto ReyesDocumento3 páginasNikko Hotel Manila Garden Vs Roberto ReyesBetson Cajayon100% (1)
- LEV Civil Law ReviewerDocumento75 páginasLEV Civil Law ReviewerBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Isobel PaperDocumento2 páginasIsobel PaperBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- The Primary Question of Interest Before This Court Is The Only Legal Issue in The CaseDocumento3 páginasThe Primary Question of Interest Before This Court Is The Only Legal Issue in The CaseBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Robert Sierra Vs People of The Philippines GR 182941Documento1 páginaRobert Sierra Vs People of The Philippines GR 182941Betson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- DisiniDocumento13 páginasDisiniBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Emilia FiguracionDocumento4 páginasEmilia FiguracionBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Rule 68Documento19 páginasRule 68Betson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Municipality of San Narciso vs. Mendez (1994) : Rule 66 - Quo WarrantoDocumento5 páginasMunicipality of San Narciso vs. Mendez (1994) : Rule 66 - Quo WarrantoBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Dimat V People of The PhilippinesDocumento6 páginasDimat V People of The PhilippinesAndrew Neil R. NinoblaAinda não há avaliações
- Go Vs COrderoDocumento6 páginasGo Vs COrderoBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- LOTA V CADocumento5 páginasLOTA V CABetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Republic V GingoyonDocumento1 páginaRepublic V GingoyonBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Palawan Travel Package: Php.2500 Per Person 3 Days and 2 Nights StayDocumento2 páginasPalawan Travel Package: Php.2500 Per Person 3 Days and 2 Nights StayBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Augusta'SProfileDocumento1 páginaAugusta'SProfileBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- Alexis BrunetteDocumento1 páginaAlexis BrunetteBetson CajayonAinda não há avaliações
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeNo EverandThe Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeNota: 4 de 5 estrelas4/5 (5794)
- The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)No EverandThe Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas4/5 (98)
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceNo EverandHidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceNota: 4 de 5 estrelas4/5 (895)
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersNo EverandThe Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersNota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (344)
- The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingNo EverandThe Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingNota: 3.5 de 5 estrelas3.5/5 (399)
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerNo EverandThe Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerNota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (271)
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaNo EverandDevil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaNota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (266)
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItNo EverandNever Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItNota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (838)
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryNo EverandA Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryNota: 3.5 de 5 estrelas3.5/5 (231)
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureNo EverandElon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureNota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (474)
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnNo EverandTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnNota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (234)
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyNo EverandThe World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyNota: 3.5 de 5 estrelas3.5/5 (2259)
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaNo EverandThe Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaNota: 4 de 5 estrelas4/5 (45)
- The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreNo EverandThe Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreNota: 4 de 5 estrelas4/5 (1090)
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)No EverandThe Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)Nota: 4.5 de 5 estrelas4.5/5 (121)
- Witness To SurveyDocumento3 páginasWitness To Surveyjessa M. BontagenAinda não há avaliações
- Lorterdan Properties at Ramapo I, LLC Vs Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc Case 11-CV-3656 (CS)Documento35 páginasLorterdan Properties at Ramapo I, LLC Vs Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc Case 11-CV-3656 (CS)evil_bunnyAinda não há avaliações
- Affidavit of Adjoining OwnerDocumento1 páginaAffidavit of Adjoining OwnerDeil L. NaveaAinda não há avaliações
- Contractul de FiducieDocumento22 páginasContractul de FiducieNeacsu CatalinAinda não há avaliações
- Case Digests Testamentary Capacity CompleteDocumento16 páginasCase Digests Testamentary Capacity CompleteDonvidachiye Liwag CenaAinda não há avaliações
- Petitioner Vs VS: Second DivisionDocumento5 páginasPetitioner Vs VS: Second DivisionCZARINA ANN CASTROAinda não há avaliações
- Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing Pada Perkara Penanaman Modal Asing Di Indonesia (Studi Kasus Pertamina Vs Karaha Bodas Company)Documento14 páginasPelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing Pada Perkara Penanaman Modal Asing Di Indonesia (Studi Kasus Pertamina Vs Karaha Bodas Company)rikokoAinda não há avaliações
- Hiroto Watanabe v. Law Yen Yen & Anor: CIVIL PROCEDURE: Declaration - Application For - Validity ofDocumento21 páginasHiroto Watanabe v. Law Yen Yen & Anor: CIVIL PROCEDURE: Declaration - Application For - Validity ofFlona LowAinda não há avaliações
- (2021 Blue Notes) Remedial LawDocumento717 páginas(2021 Blue Notes) Remedial LawAPPLE LAPURA88% (33)
- Rule 41-Appeal From The RTCDocumento19 páginasRule 41-Appeal From The RTCabbyr nulAinda não há avaliações
- Bombay High Court Original Side FormsDocumento147 páginasBombay High Court Original Side FormsAbhishek Sharma100% (2)
- Succession Digests Part 1Documento20 páginasSuccession Digests Part 1cmv mendozaAinda não há avaliações
- GR 192650Documento11 páginasGR 192650Hp AmpsAinda não há avaliações
- Affidavit of IndigencyDocumento1 páginaAffidavit of IndigencySebastian GarciaAinda não há avaliações
- Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons (Late Registration) ELIGIA FERNANDEZDocumento1 páginaAffidavit of Two Disinterested Persons (Late Registration) ELIGIA FERNANDEZFrancis MaAinda não há avaliações
- Succession Cases Week 1 SyllabusDocumento224 páginasSuccession Cases Week 1 SyllabusYeyen M. EvoraAinda não há avaliações
- Affidavit of Translation - SampleDocumento2 páginasAffidavit of Translation - SampleWilson Manalang100% (2)
- Chua V Cfi of Negros OccidentalDocumento10 páginasChua V Cfi of Negros OccidentalIvy Noreen TabañagAinda não há avaliações
- Img 0001Documento6 páginasImg 0001Vansh AgarwalAinda não há avaliações
- Affidavit of Compliance With BFAD Requirements On The Use of Certain Food ChemicalsDocumento1 páginaAffidavit of Compliance With BFAD Requirements On The Use of Certain Food ChemicalsImelda Arreglo-AgripaAinda não há avaliações
- RA 386 - Civil Code of The Philippines (Book 4 - Obligations & Contracts (Title 8 - Lease) )Documento3 páginasRA 386 - Civil Code of The Philippines (Book 4 - Obligations & Contracts (Title 8 - Lease) )remramirez100% (1)
- Irene Marcos Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008Documento19 páginasIrene Marcos Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008Doc Tess R. RegaliaAinda não há avaliações
- Etting Aside X Parte Decree ULEDocumento14 páginasEtting Aside X Parte Decree ULESiddhant BarmateAinda não há avaliações
- Land Titles 0723Documento103 páginasLand Titles 0723April IsidroAinda não há avaliações
- 117 Important Legal Maxims For Law Exams PDFDocumento14 páginas117 Important Legal Maxims For Law Exams PDFAshhab Khan100% (2)
- Counter Affidavit Against Subang FINALDocumento6 páginasCounter Affidavit Against Subang FINALMichelle SilvaAinda não há avaliações
- 2010-01-02 Zernik V Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment As Served On Plaintiff During The Purported LitigationDocumento142 páginas2010-01-02 Zernik V Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment As Served On Plaintiff During The Purported LitigationHuman Rights Alert - NGO (RA)Ainda não há avaliações
- Lecture Rule 7Documento3 páginasLecture Rule 7Jay R MVAinda não há avaliações
- JA XXXDocumento4 páginasJA XXXBadat GAAinda não há avaliações
- Affidavit Mcle 3RD Party BlankDocumento2 páginasAffidavit Mcle 3RD Party BlankKristine JanAinda não há avaliações
