Remedial law; Forecast
[Formal Amendment]
"The failure of the trial court to order the correction of a defect in the
Information curable by an amendment amounts to an arbitrary
exercise of power.
(SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, 2017)
More: https://pxl.to/axzmyh
———————————————
[Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of RTC in Drug Cases]
Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law
on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses
committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office;
Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such
public officers.
In the latter case, jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by
the Supreme Court as drugs court, [regardless] of whether the
violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public officials'
office.
(SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, 2017)
More: https://pxl.to/ly4kvrz
——————————————
[Hearsay evidence is admissible during preliminary investigation]
Hearsay evidence is admissible during preliminary investigation. The
Court held thusly:
“Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as
long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay
evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary
investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and
does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.”
Moreover, there is no rue or basic principle requiring a trial judge to
first resolve a motion to quash, (whether grounded on lack of
jurisdiction or not), before issuing a warrant of arrest.
(SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, 2017, citing Estrada v. Office of the
Ombudsman.)
More: https://pxl.to/eobubd9
—————————————
[Appeal is merely a statutory privilege (SC)]
“The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but
merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner
and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks
to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules,
failing in which the right to appeal is lost.”
(G.R. No. 147623 December 13, 2005
STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES, INC. vs. NLRC)
More: https://pxl.to/8nuwbr8
————————————
[REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTION OF THE
COMELEC AND COA (RULE 64 IN RELATION TO RULE 65)]
Election cases must be heard and decided first in [division] and any
motion for reconsideration (MR) of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission [en banc].
The Supreme Court has NO power to review via certiorari:
(a) an interlocutory order; or even
(b) a final resolution of a [Division] of the Commission on Elections.
The well-established rule is that the motion for reconsideration is
an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
(G.R. No. 194139 January 24, 2012).
More: https://pxl.to/nn1xtmr
—————————————
[Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; Rule 65]
The existence of “final judgments and/or orders of lower courts” is
required before the Supreme Court (SC) can exercise its power to
“review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari” in
“all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, 2017)
More: https://pxl.to/xopkplg
——————————————
[Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan]
Generally, the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be
determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time
of the commission of the offense
R.A. No. 8249 was later amended by R.A. No. 10660 which took effect
on May 5, 2015. Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 amends the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.
The violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 committed by officials in the
executive branch with SG 27 or higher, (first category) [and] the
officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4 a.(1) of P.D.
No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, (second
category) [regardless] of their salary grades, [likewise fall] within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(Gonowon-Ampongan vs. Sandiganbayan, 914 SCRA 235, G.R. Nos.
234670-71 August 14, 2019)
More: https://pxl.to/1b5tpbj
——————————————
[As a rule, second and subsequent motions for reconsideration are
forbidden]
Any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of
justice - as when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but
is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable or causing
unwarranted and irremediable injury or damages to the parties; and
when such second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained
before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes “final by
operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.
(Laya, Jr. Vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, 850 SCRA 315, GR. No. 205813,
2018).
———
[Rules of Procedure; Purpose]
Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon when
the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their
merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very
rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure
not overuse substantial justice.
Moreover, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the
ruling in Manchester (Manchester rule) does not apply.
(Peñoso vs. Dono, 2007)
———
[Judicial Legislation; Limitations of Power of Judicial review]
⁃ The Court cannot under its power of interpretation, supply the
legislative omission even though the omission may have resulted from
inadvertence.
(Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 2013)
——
[Rule 65; When Proper]
⁃ The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that it is “inadequacy that must
usually determine the “propriety” of certiorari and [not] the mere
“absence” of all other remedies and the danger of failure of justice
without the writ.
⁃ A remedy is considered plain, speedy and adequate if it will
promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the
judgment, or order, or resolution of the lower court or agency
⁃ Direct resort to the SC will not be entertained unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts and
exceptional and compelling circumstances, like involving national
interest and those of serious implications, justify the availment of the
extraordinary remedy of the writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of
its primary jurisdiction.
⁃ As an extraordinary writ, mandamus lies only to compel an officer
to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.
⁃ Doctrine of immutability of judgement; only upon showing that
circumstances attendant in a particular case override the grate
benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare
decisis, an the courts be justified in setting aside the same.
(Umali vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 2017).
See also, Pemberton vs. De Lima, 2016
NOTE: A petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the
preliminary investigation in other venue is rendered moot by the
issuance of a warrant of arrest and the conduct of arraignment.
——
Right of the suspect under Article 125, RPC
In relation to Arbitrary detention, Article 124, RPC, and Article 32, New
Civil Code
(IBP Pangasinan Legal Aid vs. DOJ, 2017).
———
⁃ Law of the Case Doctrine
⁃ Injunction as a mere ancillary remedy
⁃ The matters resolved in the injunction proceedings do not, as a
general rule, conclusively determine, matters of the main case or
decide controverted facts therein.
[GR No. 214864 [2017]) and [GR No. 228334, [2019]).
——
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
[ GR No. 225971 [2020])
——
Real Actions
Actions for reconveyance or or cancellation of title to or to quiet title
over real property are real actions- one involving title to, possession of,
and interest in real property.
[GR No. 217755, [2019]).
——
Lack of jurisdiction; Exception; Estoppel
(Rebamonte vs. Lucero, 2019)
——
The relaxation of procedural rules in the “interest of substantial
justice” even finds application in judgments that are already final ad
executory
(Lukban vs. Carpio-Morales, 2020)
——
Jurisdiction over the parties
Trial court fails t acquire jurisdiction over a defendant (party) who was
already dead at the time the complaint was filed against him
(Gaffney vs. Butler, 2017).
—
Real-Party-In-Interest
While a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory,
either the offended party or the accused may appeal the “civil aspect”
of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. (Pili, Jr. vs
Ressurreccion, 2019).
Rules of Procedure; Purpose
⁃ (Pili, Jr. vs Ressurreccion, 2019).
——
Certification of non-forum shopping; Substantial compliance rule
The dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned
upon especially if it will result in unfairness.
(Dizon vs. Matti, Jr (2019).
——
Actionable document
(GR No. 198998, 2019).
—
Bail; Purpose; When a matter right and discretion
(Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 2015)
——
Fling of TRO to stay execution of judgment in NLRC’s decision; Rule 65
filed before CA
⁃ GR NO. 178379, 2017
——
Intervention; When Proper; Necessary party; Writ of preliminary
attachment as a mere provisional remedy; Juridiction over the person
of the party; Rights of necessary party.
⁃ Yu vs. Miranda, 2019
—-
Injunctive writ; when proper
⁃ AMA Land, Inc. vs. Was Resident’s Association, Inc., 2017
——
Petition for annulment of judgement under Rule 47; When proper;
when should be filed
⁃ Heir of Alfredo Cullado vs. Gutierrez, 2019
NOTE:
If the petitioner, as in this case, had already availed himself of the
remedy of a petition for relied from judgment under Rule 38, raising
the issue of extrinsic fraud with the trial court, he is effectively barred
from raisin the same issue via(his petition for annulment of Judgment).
Howver, CA ruled in this case that the petitioner cannot be deemed
guilty of laches nor place in estoppel, as he immediately resorted to
court action upon learning of the unfavorable Decision. Thus, if he is
able to prove that the trial court indeed went beyond its jurisdiction in
issuing its Decision, nothing prevents him from asking it annulment.
(Lack of jurisdiction as a valid ground under Rule 47).
——
Grounds for recovery possession of Real Property; unlawful detainer
cases; scope of Judgment as to issue of possession; Limited jurisdiction
of MTC to resolve title over the property.
⁃ Heir of Alfredo Cullado vs. Gutierrez, 2019
——
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) have jurisdiction to hear and decide
indirect contempt cases involving disobedience to quasi-judicial
entities- RTC of the place wherein the contempt has been committed.
⁃ [GR No. 183324, 2019]
——
Authority to represent the State; OSG; appeals in criminal cases before
the SC; Institution of actions; party-in-interest
[Bumatay vs. Bumatay, 2017]
——
Effect of acquittal in criminal cases; Final and executory; Exception;
Rule 65; Error of judgment vs. Jurisdictional error; Offer of evidence;
Burden of in criminal cases; acquittal
⁃ [GR No. 215118, 2019]
——
Prejudicial question
⁃ Mathay vs. People, 2020
——
Error of judgment vs. Jurisdictional error; Jurisdiction of Ombudsman;
What constitute grave abuse of discretion; Expanded concept of
Judicial Review under the 1987 Constitution; Administrative
determination of probable cause
⁃ [GR No. 197613, 2017]
⁃ See also, Napoles vs. De Lima, 2016
——
Judicial determination of probable cause; Nature of Motion for
Reconsideration (MR); Use of “motive” in criminal cases
⁃ Napoles vs. De Lima, 2016
——
Remedy of TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction; Stay the proceeding
in lower tribunal; Order denying the Motion to Quash as an
interlocutory Order - Proper remedy; Right to speedy disposition of the
cases vs. Right to a speedy trial; Preliminary Investigation; Right of the
State to prosecute criminal action
⁃ Cagang vs. Sandiganbayanbayan, 2018.
——
Duties and responsibilities of investigating prosecutor to promptly
decide whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent
for trial
⁃ Javier vs. Sandiganbayan , 2020
——
Judicial determination of probable cause
⁃ People vs. Gabiosa, 2020
⁃ See also, People vs. Sapla, 2020
——
Warrantless searches and seizure of moving vehicles; non-intrusive
search, reasonable; Confidential or tipped information- hearsay;
Probable cause; Stop-and-frisk search; ;limited to a protective search
of outer clothing for weapon; Exclusionary rule; Fruit of a poisonous
tree
⁃ People vs. Sapla, 2020
—
Co-ownership; trust; real estate mortgage
⁃ Logrosa vs. Azares, 2019
——
Writ of amparo; when proper; substantial evidence
⁃ Gadian vs. Ibrado, 2017
⁃ See also, Sec. Of National defense vs Manalo, 2008
⁃ Republic vs. Cayanan, 2017
—-
Mandamus; Exhaustion of administrative remedies
⁃ [GR. No. 211362, 2015]
——
Writ of KALIKASAN
⁃ GR NO. 209165, 2016).
FB_@PhilJurisOfficial:
https://bit.ly/3zqH98H
