Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    009 KAWPENG Ocampo Vs Cabangis

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    The Supreme Court denied a motion to set aside one of its judgments that did not comply with the legislative requirement under Article 136 that SC decisions be in writing, signed by concurring judges, and state the grounds for the decision. While Article 136 expressed a proper rule, the judicial actions of the SC cannot be controlled by the legislature. Legislative directions regarding judicial procedures are merely directory and non-compliance does not invalidate a decision, as substantive rights cannot be affected by failure to follow secondary procedural rules.

    Copyright:

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

    009 KAWPENG Ocampo Vs Cabangis

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    117 views1 page
    The Supreme Court denied a motion to set aside one of its judgments that did not comply with the legislative requirement under Article 136 that SC decisions be in writing, signed by concurring judges, and state the grounds for the decision. While Article 136 expressed a proper rule, the judicial actions of the SC cannot be controlled by the legislature. Legislative directions regarding judicial procedures are merely directory and non-compliance does not invalidate a decision, as substantive rights cannot be affected by failure to follow secondary procedural rules.

    Original Title

    009 KAWPENG Ocampo vs Cabangis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied a motion to set aside one of its judgments that did not comply with the legislative requirement under Article 136 that SC decisions be in writing, signed by concurring judges, and state the grounds for the decision. While Article 136 expressed a proper rule, the judicial actions of the SC cannot be controlled by the legislature. Legislative directions regarding judicial procedures are merely directory and non-compliance does not invalidate a decision, as substantive rights cannot be affected by failure to follow secondary procedural rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views1 page

    009 KAWPENG Ocampo Vs Cabangis

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    The Supreme Court denied a motion to set aside one of its judgments that did not comply with the legislative requirement under Article 136 that SC decisions be in writing, signed by concurring judges, and state the grounds for the decision. While Article 136 expressed a proper rule, the judicial actions of the SC cannot be controlled by the legislature. Legislative directions regarding judicial procedures are merely directory and non-compliance does not invalidate a decision, as substantive rights cannot be affected by failure to follow secondary procedural rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    OCAMPO VS CABANGIS (Shanie)

    GR No.3983. Feb 15, 1910 | Elliot, J. | Enactment of Statutes – Legislative Power of Defects in the writing of judicial decisions, as per standards set by Art 136, does not
    Congress impair the decision rendered, as judicial actions of the SC cannot be controlled by
    legislative directions.
    PLAINTIFF APPELLEES: Salvadora Ocampo
    DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Tomas Cabangis
    Law of the Second Philippine Commission (passed June 11, 1901). It reorganized the
    Philippine judicial system; and among other things, vested the judicial power of the
    SUMMARY: The case is silent on the details of crime/complaint.
    SC, CFI, and the Justice of Peace courts; and provided for the early composition of
    the High Court (1 CJ, 6 AJs), all appointed by the Commission.
    The SC issued a judgment not subscribing to the legislative requirement on how
    decisions should be written, and a Motion was filed by appellees to set
    ISSUE/s: WoN the Motion to set aside judgment of the Superme Court can prosper
    aside/cancel/annul the judgment of the Supreme Court (which reversed the
    – NO
    decisions of the lower courts and absolved the defendant from the compliant)
    due to non-compliance with Art 136 requiring SC judgment/decisions be (1) in
    RULING: Motion DENIED.
    writing, (2) signed by the judges concurring the decision, and (3) that the
    grounds of the decision be stated as briefly as may be consistent with clearness.
    RATIO:
    1. Sec 15 of Art 136 expressed a proper rule which should be observed by the
    Motion DENIED by SC as the judicial action of the SC cannot be controlled by
    court, unless there is some substantial reason for departing therefrom., but if
    legislative decisions.
    such substantial reason exists, the judicial action cannot be controlled by
    legislative directions. NET, The Judicial action of the Superme Court cannot
    DOCTRINE: Section 15 of Act 136 provides that in the determination of
    be controlled by the legislative direction
    causes, all decisions of the Supreme Court – (1) shall be in writng, (2) signed by
    o Non-compliance with Section 15 of Act 136 does not render the
    the judges concurring the decision, and (3) that the grounds of the decision shall
    be stated as briefly as may be consistent with clearness. However, it does not say decision of the court defective; No legislature has ever attempted to
    that the failure to comply shall render the decision ineffective. make the validity of a decision dependent upon the exact form in which
    it is expressed.
    o Legislature often enacts statutes for the purpose of providing an orderly
    procedure for the conduct of public business, but the procedure is
    FACTS: secondary to the importance of substantive rights, and the non-
    observance of such procedure should never be permitted to affect
    On Dec 26, 1908, a judgment was entered in the case with the following words: substantive rights, unless the intention of the legislature is clearly
    expressed.
    “Without prejudice to the filing of an extended opinion later, the judgment o Legislative statures of this nature are merely directory, and the
    appealed from is hereby reversed, and the defendant is absolved from the complaint
    compliance is not necessary for the validaity of the proceedings.
    without special finding as to costs, and 20 days thereafter, let judgment be entered in
    conformity herewith, and 10 days, let the record be returned to the court wherein it
    2. Decisions of the SC are directory, in nature.
    originated, for the appropriate action. So ordered.”

    1. No further decision was ever filed after.


    2. 2 of the 4 justices who signed the decision are no longer members of the court

    The appellees sought the cancellation and annulment of the entry of judgment and
    the recall of decision and the record of the case in the SC.

    For perspective, in 1910, the Philippines was bound by Act 136, called the Judiciary

    You might also like