PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

In G.R. No. 160380, the main issue raised was whether or not the tax delinquency proceedings conducted on the subject parcel of land situated at Block 2, Lot 6, Alta Tierra Village, Jaro, Iloilo City was regular and legal. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the tax delinquency proceedings was legal and with force and effect, since the requirements regarding the publication and notice of an auction sale under Section 73 of P.D. No. 464 were not complied with. The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the tax delinquency proceedings. The pertinent provision of law in this case is Section 73 of P.D. No. 464, thus: SEC. 73. Advertisement of sale of real property at public auction. -  After the expiration of the year for which the tax is due, the provincial or city treasurer shall advertise the sale at public auction of the entire delinquent real property, except real property mentioned in subsection (a) of Section fort

In G.R. No. 162836, the petition supposedly filed by petitioners Jocson and Tuising was not signed by Jocson’s counsel. It was Tuising’s counsel who signed in behalf of Jocson’s counsel. Tuising’s counsel had no authority to sign the petition in behalf of Jocson. The records are bereft of any proof that Jocson ever authorized Tuising’s counsel to be her counsel or to act in her behalf. Under Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, otherwise the pleading produces no legal effect . Furthermore, only Tuising signed the Verification and Certification for Non-Forum Shopping. Jocson did not sign the Verification and Certification. Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the petition for review on certiorari to be verified. A pleading required to be verified which lacks proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading . Although Tuising belatedly filed on 24 Sept

In National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, a case involving an easement of a right-of-way over a parcel of land that would be traversed by high-powered transmission lines, just like the situation obtaining in Republic v. Libunao, the Supreme Court held that the nature and effect of the installation of power lines and the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period should be considered, as the owners of the properties would be deprived of the normal use of their properties. For this reason, the property owners are entitled to the payment of just compensation based on the full market value of the affected properties. The Court explained: Granting arguendo that the National Power Corporation acquired over the landowner's property was purely an easement of a right of way, still, the view cannot be sustained that it should pay only an easement fee, and not the full value of the property. The acquisition of such an easement falls

In an eminent domain case, as in any other case, the tradition is to first resolve the procedural matter raised by the parties. Particularly, for example, in the case of Republic v. Libunao, the adjective issue was whether petitioner should pay just compensation for the entire area of the landowners' properties or only an easement fee of 10% of the market value of the properties traversed by the transmission lines is a factual matter which is not proper for a petition for review. In National Power Corporation v. Purefoods Corporation, the Supreme Court held: There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as t

Despite the pendency of G.R. No. 169700 for around 18 years, the exception laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy and clarified recently in Figueroa v. People cannot be applied. There are three reasons for this. First, because, as a general rule, the principle of estoppel by laches cannot lie against the government . Second, no injustice to the parties or to any third person will be wrought by the ruling that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instituted probate proceedings. Third and most important, because in Tijam, the delayed invocation of lack of jurisdiction has been made during the execution stage of a final and executory ruling of a court . In Figueroa, the Court has emphasized that estoppel by laches only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu in Tijam. It is well to note the following factual setting of Tijam: [FACTS RE TIJAM START HERE.]  On July 19, 1948 — barely one month after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 296 known as the

In EDGARDO A. QUILO, Complainant, vs. ROGELIO G. JUNDARINO, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA, Respondent (A.M. No. P-09-2644, July 30, 2009), after a thorough review of the records of the case, the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the OCA that Sheriff Jundarino is guilty of simple misconduct. Sheriff Jundarino’s main defense against Quilo’s Complaint herein is denial. Sheriff Jundarino denies that he went to Quilo’s residence on 12 February 2008. Although Sheriff Jundarino admits being at Quilo’s residence on 27 March 2008, the former again denies that he and his company forcibly entered the premises without Quilo’s permission. Sheriff Jundarino also denies that he coerced Quilo’s wife and neighbors to signing a document to the effect that they would voluntarily vacate the premises by 10 April 2008. Sheriff Jundarino further denies that he uttered to Quilo on 12 February 2008, "ikaw ang una kong tatrabahuin at ipapademolis sa sandaling magmatiga

The doctrine of res judicata applies and treats the final determination of the action as speaking the infallible truth as to the rights of the parties as to the entire subject of the controversy, and such controversy and every part of it must stand irrevocably closed by such determination. The sum and substance of the whole doctrine is that a matter once judicially decided is finally decided. Res judicata is based on the ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in the former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again . This principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents the clogging of court dockets. Equally important, res judicata stabilizes rights and promotes the rule of law. The requisites of res judicata are: (1) there must be a former final judgment rendere

Pursuant to the resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC dated 6 November 2000, all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions. 1. Judges and court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator. x x x Corollarily, Section 67 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave provides that any violation of the leave laws, rules or regulations, or any misrepresentation or deception in connection with an application for leave shall be a ground for disciplinary action. In CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, Complainants, v. LARIZZA PAGUIO-BACANI, Branch Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, Respondent (A.M. NO. P-06-2217, July 30, 2009), the respondent-Clerk of Court was by the Supreme Court reminded of the constitutional provis

The photo above is hot-linked from: Rodrigo Duterte: 'The moment I assume the presidency, contractualization will stop.'. Apr 25, 2016. https://www.cosmo.ph/entertainment/rodrigo-duterte-pilipinas-debates-2016-a00011-20160425. Duterte's campaign promise is to end "contractualization" or "end endo." However, supporters and critics alike have recently been shocked when the President himself vetoed the Security of Tenure bill that would absolutely and completely prohibit "endo." In rejecting the Security of Tenure bill, Duterte gave Congress the following reasons: [1] The bill 'unduly broadens the scope and definition' of endo While the proposed legislation codifies existing labor laws and regulations, Duterte argued that the bill effectively banned other forms of contractualization that do not particularly harm employees. “Indeed, while labor-only contracting must be prohibited, legitimate job-contracting should be allowed,

[G.R. No. 1. October 18, 1901. ] THE UNITED STATES , Complainant-Appellee, v. MANUEL SY-TAY , Defendant-Appellant. Early & Levering, Attorneys for Appellant. Montagne & Dominguez, Attorneys for Appellee. WILLARD, J.: In this motion, the moving party prays the court to dismiss the appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The accused was tried for seduction in the court of the justice of the peace of Binondo, and judgment of conviction was there rendered against him. He appealed from this judgment to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which took cognizance of the case on appeal and gave judgment affirming the judgment of the justice of the peace. From this judgment an appeal to this court was admitted. The motion must be granted. Section 43 of General Orders, No. 58, permits an appeal in this class of cases only when there is involved the constitutionality or validity of a law. The accused alleges that General Orders, No. 58, is a law in force

If there was no marriage ceremony and the parties merely signed the marriage contract without such a ceremony, there is no semblance of a valid marriage. In the case of Morigo v. People (G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004), no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. The man and the woman merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. In the case cited above, the husband married twice without getting a judicial decree nullifying or declaring the nullity of the first marriage. He was sued for bigamy which is the crime of entering into a contract of marriage whil

This year's bar topnotcher from the San Beda College of Law admitted having a hard time answering questions in the 2009 Bar Exam. Reinier Paul Yebra, who is the first San Beda student to top the bar in over 40 years, passed the exam with a score of 84.80%. The last San Beda law student who topped the bar exam was Rodolfo D. Robles in 1967. “Mahirap talaga ‘yong exam. Mahaba at mahirap. (The exam was difficult. It was long and difficult),” Yebra said. “The examinees had a difficult time answering the questions.” Yebra said the Supreme Court’s decision to lower the passing grade from 75% to 71% was "just right" because the exam questions are becoming more and more complex. “I think na tama lang na ibinaba nila. (It’s just right that they lowered the passing grade),” he said. Yebra told ABS-CBN News in an interview that he is glad he passed the exam, becoming one of the few lucky passers. Less than a quarter (24%) of 5,903 examinees passed this year, acc

The bar is said to be the toughest licensure exams in the country. Judy Lardizabal, the topnotcher in the 2008 Bar examinations, was given a hero's welcome by her family, neighbors and community in Imus, Cavite as she returned home on Saturday. Despite her family's poverty, Lardizabal, 28, triumphed over 1,309 other Bar passers and 6,363 other law graduates who took the exams in September 2008. Lardizabal topped the Bar exams with an 85.70 percent rating. Judy's father, Deodato, is a tricycle driver, and her mother is a market vendor. She had to get a job at a government office so she could finish law school at San Sebastian College. "Papasok ako sa office nang morning, aalis ng 5 o'clock para maka-catch-up dun sa class ko ng 6 o'clock hanggang 9 o'clock," recalled Lardizabal. Her mother, Vicky, thanked her daughter for once again giving them pride and joy from her most recent academic achievement. "Talagang wala ng mapaglagy

The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated its En Banc resolution in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC or the Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases, which guides lower court judges on the offenses falling under acceptable plea bargain agreement. This, as the SC also reminded all trial court judges to be mindful of the existing court issuances, the earliest one having been issued two decades ago in 1999, directing them “to exercise with utmost caution, prudence, and judiciousness” in issuing temporary restraining orders (TROs) and writs of preliminary injunctions. The reiteration came in light of President Rodrigo Duterte’s earlier statements questioning the purported issuances by courts of TROs on his administration’s infrastructure projects, as well as the approval of plea bargaining in drug cases. SC Spokesperson and Public Information Office Chief Atty. Brian Hosaka said that Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin has directed Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez to look into

A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases). — On August 15, 2017, an En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 226679 — Salvador Estipona, Jr. vs. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo was rendered whereby Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, was declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; On April 3, 2018, the Court En Banc deliberated upon and discussed Administrative Matter No. 18-03-16-SC regarding the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework submitted by the Philippine Judges Association; On April 5, 2018, Justice Diosdado M. Peralta met with the Officers of the Philippine Judges Association, namely: Hon. Felix P. Reyes (President), Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo (Senior Vice-President), Hon. Francisco P. Felizmenio (VP Legal), Hon. Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson (Secretary General), Hon. Divina Gracia L. Peliño and Hon. Racque

Provisional remedies are pre-judgment or pre-trial court orders intended to preserve the status quo until the court issues a final judgment. DEFINITION GROUNDS PURPOSE COURT WHICH CAN GRANT 1. Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57) A provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the adverse party therein, the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment might be secured in said action by the attaching party against the adverse party a. In an action for the recovery of a specified amount or damages, other than moral and exe