Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Garcia Vs Ferro Chemicals

    Uploaded by

    Darren Joseph del Prado
    This case involves two separate disputes over jurisdiction: 1) Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals: Antonio Garcia sued to repurchase shares he previously sold to Ferro. Ferro countersued for fraud. The Supreme Court found the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the crime charged fell under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court. 2) People vs Court of Appeals: Rico and Lipao were convicted of illegal logging. On appeal, the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, finding that jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of filing, not later changes, and the RTC properly had jurisdiction when the case was filed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garcia Vs Ferro Chemicals

    Uploaded by

    Darren Joseph del Prado
    77 views3 pages
    This case involves two separate disputes over jurisdiction: 1) Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals: Antonio Garcia sued to repurchase shares he previously sold to Ferro. Ferro countersued for fraud. The Supreme Court found the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the crime charged fell under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court. 2) People vs Court of Appeals: Rico and Lipao were convicted of illegal logging. On appeal, the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, finding that jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of filing, not later changes, and the RTC properly had jurisdiction when the case was filed.

    Original Title

    Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two separate disputes over jurisdiction: 1) Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals: Antonio Garcia sued to repurchase shares he previously sold to Ferro. Ferro countersued for fraud. The Supreme Court found the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the crime charged fell under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court. 2) People vs Court of Appeals: Rico and Lipao were convicted of illegal logging. On appeal, the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, finding that jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of filing, not later changes, and the RTC properly had jurisdiction when the case was filed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    77 views3 pages

    Garcia Vs Ferro Chemicals

    Uploaded by

    Darren Joseph del Prado
    This case involves two separate disputes over jurisdiction: 1) Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals: Antonio Garcia sued to repurchase shares he previously sold to Ferro. Ferro countersued for fraud. The Supreme Court found the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the crime charged fell under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court. 2) People vs Court of Appeals: Rico and Lipao were convicted of illegal logging. On appeal, the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, finding that jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of filing, not later changes, and the RTC properly had jurisdiction when the case was filed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals

    Antonio Garcia and Ferro entered into a deed of absolute sale and purchase of
    shares of stocks in the name of Antonio Garcia. The contract was entered into to
    prevent the stocks from being sold at public auction to pay for the outstanding
    obligations of Antonio.
    A deed of right of repurchase was entered into by the parties in which Antonio can
    redeem the properties within 180 days. Before the lapse of such period, Antonio
    exercised his right to repurchase but Ferro refused. Garcia filed an action for
    specific performance and annulment of transfer of shares.
    Ferro then charged Garcia with estafa under Article 318 for allegedly
    misrepresenting that the shares were free from lien and encumbrances. RTC
    acquitted Garcia and so the case was elevated to the CA and the latter held in
    favor of Ferro. When the case reached the Supreme court, Antonio Garcia claims
    that both he and Ferro acted in bad faith when they entered into the deed of
    absolute sale as a scheme to defraud Garcias creditors, thus they were in pari
    delicto and Ferro should not be allowed to recover.
    SC found out that there were issues not raised before the courts.
    Issue: WN the RTC had jurisdiction over the case
    Held:
    No, Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by law. In
    criminal cases, the imposable penalty of the crime charged in the information
    determines the court that has jurisdiction over the case The information charged
    Garcia with the violation of Article 318 of the RVP punishable by arresto mayor or
    imprisonment for a period of 1 month and 1 day to six months.
    The information was filed on September 3, 1990, the law in force at the time
    was BP 129 before it was amended by RA 7691. under said law, the metropolitan
    trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
    The trial courts lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the paries silence on
    the matter.

    People vs Court of Appeals


    Rico and Lipao were indicted for and pleaded not guilty to violation of PD 705 as
    amended by EO 277. Accused were caught possessing timbers and firewood with
    a market value of P3100 without legal documents. They were caught loading the
    forest products in the pumpboat rickjoy owned by Rico.
    Offense charged is punishable under ARt. 309 (theft) punishable by prision
    correccional. During the pendency of the proceedings of the criminal case, RA
    7691 took effect. It expanded the jurisdiction of MeTCs, MTCs, MCTC in criminal
    cases to cover all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.
    Before RA 7491, BP 129 was in effect and provided that MeTC, MTC, MCTC shall
    have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment
    not exceeding four years and two months. RTC rendered decision finding the
    Lipaos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
    Lipaos filed na appeal before the CA arguing that they were subjected to an illegal
    search and seizure and so evidence cannot be used against them. The CA granted
    the appeal of the Lipaos and dismissed the case before it on the ground of lack of
    jurisdiction of the RTC.
    Issue: WON RTC retained jurisdcition over the case
    HELD: Yes. The passage of RA 7691 did not ipso facto relieve the RTC of the
    jurisdiction to hear and decide the criminal case against private respondents.
    The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the
    law in force at the time of the institution of the action. When a court has already
    obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdcition to
    proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by the new
    legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal.
    Exception to the rile is when the statute expressly provides or is construed to
    the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its
    enactment.

    You might also like