(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAW
(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAW
Uploaded by
Aejy DuczCopyright:
Available Formats
(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAW
(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAW
Uploaded by
Aejy DuczOriginal Title
Copyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Copyright:
Available Formats
(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAW
(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAW
Uploaded by
Aejy DuczCopyright:
Available Formats
DR. ULPIANO P.
SARMIENTO III
Dean
ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE
Vice Dean
ATTY. MARIA ELIZA CAMILLE B. YAMAMOTO-SANTOS
Prefect of Student Affairs
ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.
Administrative Officer
TTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.
A
ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III
Advisers
SAMUEL JOSHUA CRUZ
Overall Chairperson
REX ROLAND REGIO MARIA LOURDES MENDOZA
Chairperson, Academics Chairperson, Finance
MAEIA MIKHAELA MAYUGA DIAZMEAN KYLA SOTELO
hairperson, Assessment, Learning &
C Chairperson, Recruitment & Membership
Development
BRYAN AREVALO
PIA MONICA DIMAGUILA hairperson, Partnership & External
C
Chairperson, Bar Matters Relations
ANDREA JOSES TAN THERESE JEANNE BELARMINO
Chairperson, Communications Chairperson, Operations & Logistics
MIGERN COLE ESTABILLO ROSANNA NAIG
Chairperson, Secretariat Chairperson, EDP
MA. LOLITA KIM PALENCIA
Chairperson, Bar Mentoring Program
YRREL DAVE NAVELA
Z USTINE VINCENT PASCUAL
J
MARK COLOCADO JOEL REMENTILLA
eputy Chairpersons, Operations &
D Deputy Chairpersons, Academics
Logistics
GISELLE MARIE DIAZ
Deputy Chairperson, Communications
NTONINA CONCEPCION
A
MIER DELA CRUZ ILL QUIMSON
J
Deputy Chairperson, Membership
MARIEL ARAGON
Deputy Chairpersons, ALD
RAMAINE BALON
A
MICHAEL DOMINIQUE ISIDRO JASMINE JAGUNAP
Deputy Chairpersons, Finance
Deputy Chairperson, Bar Matters
NGEL ROSE CINCO
A ARON FRANCISCO
A
MA. REGINA SANTIAGO RHIANA NAVARRO
AUBREY ANGELI TAN eputy Chairpersons, Bar Mentoring
D
ZAMANTHA JOSH ALCAZAR Program
DOMSKI CANDOLITA
Deputy Chairpersons, EDP AARMIE GOCE
L
ERIKA PACA
KATHERINE ANNE LABAYO Deputy Chairpersons, Secretariat
Deputy Chairperson, Ex Parte
HANZ CHRISTIAN MIRAFLOR KIMBERLY JOY NAPARAN
Commercial Law Political Law
ISABELA SOFIA ELEAZAR ANTHONY JOHN RODRIGUEZ
Legal Ethics Taxation Law
LANCE LIZOR PUNZALAN LOUISE ATHENA MONSERRAT
Remedial Law Civil Law
FELICE LEONAJOY HERNANDEZ ERYL AMRHEIN AGUSTIN
Criminal Law Labor Law
QUENNIE SERENO ENRIC ALCAIDE
Commercial Law Political Law
SOFIA REGINA YASAY ROSCH MANUEL
Legal Ethics Taxation Law
NALA ANOVER HILLARY SANTILLAN
Remedial Law Civil Law
JANNAH ODTUHAN BIANCA VELASCO
Criminal Law Labor Law
KIM JAN BATECAN
VERONICA BAUTISTA
ADRIAN ALY CHIO
JOSE PAULO DE LOS REYES
SYDNEY ROSE DOB
THEA MARAGANA
JOSEPH MILLADO
PRECIOUS MORANTE
DAVID PADRE
PAMELA PRIETO
BIANCA PUJALTE
AMIEL RAPISTA
CHANTAL SANGGALANG
Volunteers
RAMON TIMOTHY BAUTISTA
AUSTIN SANTUELE
This work is the intellectual property of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW and SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2024. It is intended solely for the use of the individuals to
which it is addressed – the Bedan community.
Publication, reproduction, dissemination, and distribution, or copying of
the document without the prior consent of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE
ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ACADEMICS
COMMITTEE 2024 is strictly prohibited.
Material includes cases penned by Justice Lopez and recent landmark
cases decided by the Supreme Court.
COPYRIGHT © 2024
AN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW
S
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2024
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REMEDIALLAW...........................................................................................................................7
Jurisdiction...............................................................................................................................7
AspectsofJurisdiction.......................................................................................................7
Velasquez,Jr.v.LisondraLand,Inc............................................................................7
PrimaryJurisdictionandExhaustionofAdministrativeRemedies.....................................8
UREmployedInternationalCorp.v.Pinmiliw.............................................................8
CIVILPROCEDURE......................................................................................................................9
Pleadings.................................................................................................................................9
PartiestoCivilActions-Rule3..........................................................................................9
DEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINESV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT...........9
PartsandContents;FormalRequirements-Rule7........................................................11
SPOUSESCORDEROV.OCTAVIANO.....................................................................11
EffectofFailuretoPlead-Rule9....................................................................................12
VITARICHCORP.V.DAGMIL....................................................................................12
AmendedandSupplementalPleadings-Rule10...........................................................13
HEIRSOFTEJADAV.HAY.......................................................................................13
Summons...............................................................................................................................14
ServiceofSummons........................................................................................................14
INTEGRATEDMICROELECTRONICS,INC.V.STANDARDINSURANCECO.,INC.
14
JudgmentsandFinalOrders.................................................................................................15
SPOUSESPOBLETEV.BANCOFILIPINOSAVINGSANDMORTGAGEBANK....15
PAGUIOV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT(EnBanc).....................................................16
DEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINESV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT.........17
RemediesBeforeFinalityofJudgment..................................................................................19
AppealsandOtherModesofReview-Rules40-45;Rule64.........................................19
SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION V. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS,
INC.............................................................................................................................19
AUSTRIAVAAAANDBBB.......................................................................................20
ANGV.COURTOFAPPEALS..................................................................................22
COLLADOV.DELAVEGA........................................................................................23
MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET V. MUNICIPALITY OF SUGPON, ILOCOS
SUR...........................................................................................................................24
RemediesAfterJudgmentBecomesFinal............................................................................25
AnnulmentofJudgment-Rule47...................................................................................25
Thomasv.Trono........................................................................................................25
Execution,Satisfaction,andEffectsofJudgments(Rule39)..........................................26
CITYGOVERNMENTOFTACLOBANV.COURTOFAPPEALS.............................26
PIONEERINSURANCE&SURETYCORP.V.TIGINSURANCECO......................27
MetropolitanBankandTrustCo.v.RadioPhilippinesNetwork,Inc..........................28
ProvisionalRemedies............................................................................................................29
PreliminaryInjunctionandTemporaryRestrainingOrder-Rule58................................29
DELIMAV.COURTOFAPPEALS...........................................................................29
SPECIALCIVILACTIONS..........................................................................................................30
Certiorari,Prohibition,andMandamus(Rule65)..................................................................30
PUREGOLDPRICECLUB,INC.V.COURTOFAPPEALS......................................30
ForcibleEntryandUnlawfulDetainer(Rule70)....................................................................31
GALACGACV.BAUTISTA.........................................................................................31
5
SPECIALPROCEEDINGSANDSPECIALWRITS....................................................................32
KAIZENBUILDERS,INC.V.COURTOFAPPEALS.................................................32
SettlementofEstateofDeceasedPersons...........................................................................33
GOZUMV.PAPPAS...................................................................................................33
ChangeofName(Rule103)..................................................................................................34
REPUBLICV.MALIGAYA..........................................................................................34
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry (Rule 108; R.A. 9048, as amended
byR.A.No.10172)................................................................................................................35
REPUBLICV.ONTUCAYPELEÑO..........................................................................35
CRIMINALPROCEDURE...........................................................................................................36
ProsecutionofOffenses(Rule110).......................................................................................36
AUSTRIAv.AAA........................................................................................................36
ProsecutionofCivilAction(Rule111)....................................................................................38
CivilLiabilityEx-delicto;IncasesofAcquittal(SeealsoCivilCode,Art.36)...................38
COLLADOV.DEVEGA.............................................................................................38
PreliminaryInvestigation(Rule112)......................................................................................39
AuthorizedOfficers;DeterminationofProbableCause-Sections2-4............................39
MACASIL V. FRAUD AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION OFFICE-COMMISSION ON
AUDIT........................................................................................................................39
Arrest,Search,andSeizures.................................................................................................40
SearchWarrant-Rule126;LawfulWarrantlessArrest-Rule113,Sec.5......................40
SULLANOYSANTIAV.PEOPLE.............................................................................40
Bail(Rule114);RecognizanceActof2012(R.A.No.10389)...............................................41
PEOPLEV.NAPOLES...............................................................................................41
MotiontoQuashInformation(Rule117)................................................................................42
DoubleJeopardy-Section7...........................................................................................42
JCLVREALTY&DEVELOPMENTCORP.V.MANGALI...........................................42
Trial(Rule119)......................................................................................................................43
DemurrertoEvidence(Section23)..................................................................................43
JCLVREALTY&DEVELOPMENTCORP.V.MANGALI...........................................43
CACDACV.MERCADO............................................................................................44
EVIDENCE(A.M.No.19-08-15-SC)...........................................................................................45
KeyConcepts........................................................................................................................45
Admissibility;RelevanceandCompetence-Rule128....................................................45
RE:JOHNMARKTAMAÑO.......................................................................................45
PEOPLEV.CAMPOS................................................................................................46
Kinds......................................................................................................................................47
TestimonialEvidence-Rule130,C;Opinion-Sections51-53.......................................47
CIVILSERVICECOMMISSIONV.DAMPILAG.........................................................47
TURALBAYVILLEGASV.PEOPLE.........................................................................48
PresentationofEvidence.......................................................................................................49
STRONGFORTWAREHOUSINGCORP.V.BANTA................................................49
6
REMEDIAL LAW
Jurisdiction
Aspects of Jurisdiction
Velasquez, Jr. v. Lisondra Land, Inc.
G.R. No. 231290 | August 27, 2020
FACTS
erfecto Velasquez, Jr. sued Lisondra Land Inc. for breach of contract before
P
the RTC but Lisondra moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction since
supposed violations of real estate trade and business practices are within the
Housing andLandUseRegulatoryBoard’s(HLURB)exclusivejurisdiction.Upon
denying Lisondra’s motion to dismiss, Lisondra filed a petition for certiorari
before CA which was grantedandorderedthedismissalofthecaseforlackof
jurisdiction.WhenVelasquezre-filedthecasewiththeHLURB,Lisondraargued
that RTC had jurisdiction over the case since the dispute is between joint
venture partners and is an intra-corporate controversy.
DOCTRINE
urisdiction is defined as the power and authority to hear, try, and decide a
J
case.Inorderforthecourtoranadjudicativebodytohaveauthoritytodispose
ofthecaseonthemerits,itmustacquirejurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.It
isaxiomaticthatjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterisconferredbylawandnot
by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous
belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court or tribunal has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the
action.
evertheless,arecognizedexceptiontothisruleisestoppel.Thenotionthatthe
N
defenseoflackofjurisdictionmaybewaivedbyestoppelonthepartyinvoking
itmostprominentlyemergedin Tijamv.SibonghanoywheretheSupremeCourt
heldthatapartycannotinvokethejurisdictionofacourttosecureaffirmative
relief against his opponent and, after obtainingorfailingtoobtainsuchrelief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
7
Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
U R Employed International Corp. v. Pinmiliw
G.R. No. 225263 | March 16, 2022
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by
T
petitioners UR Employed International and Miguel against respondents
Pinmiliw, Pacya, Bastog and Ayochok. The petitioners in this case point to the
CA's alleged error in not declaring thattheNLRCandtheLAcommittedgrave
abuse of discretion when theyviolatedthedoctrinesofprimaryadministrative
jurisdiction and immutability of judgment.
DOCTRINE
rimaryjurisdiction,alsoknownasthedoctrineofpriorresort,isthepowerand
P
authority vestedbytheConstitutionorbystatuteuponanadministrativebody
to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. The doctrine of
primaryjurisdictionpreventsthecourtfromarrogatinguntoitselftheauthority
to resolve a controversy which falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal
possessed withspecialcompetence.Insomeinstances,anadministrativebody
is granted primary jurisdiction, concurrentwithanothergovernmentagencyor
the regular court.
ntheotherhand,thedoctrineofimmutabilityofjudgmentsprovidesthat "all
O
the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a
judgmentbecomesfinal.Nootheractioncanbetakenonthedecisionexceptto
order its execution.
8
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Pleadings
Parties to Civil Actions - Rule 3
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 247787 | March 2, 2021
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 filed by petitioner
T
DevelopmentBankofthePhilippines(DBP)assailingrespondentCommissionon
Audit's(COA)Decision.Ononehand,theDBParguedthatthe1stCOADecision
is already final and executory without a motion for reconsideration or appeal
filed within 30 days from notice and that Pagaragan is a stranger to thecase
and has no legalpersonalitytomoveforareconsideration.Ontheotherhand,
the COA maintains that Pagaragan is a real party-in-interest because he is
concernedwiththeproperimplementationoftheDBP'scompensationplanand
in ensuring that its funds are properly managed.
DOCTRINE
[ PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3) - REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
(SECTION 2)]
udicialreviewmaybeexercisedonlywhenthepersonchallengingtheacthas
J
the requisite legal standing, whichreferstoapersonalandsubstantialinterest
inthecasesuchthathehassustained,orwillsustain,directinjuryasaresultof
itsenforcement.Theparty'sinterestmustalsobematerialasdistinguishedfrom
mere interest in thequestioninvolved,oramereincidentalinterest.Itmustbe
personalandnotbasedonadesiretovindicatetheconstitutionalrightofsome
third and unrelated party.
9
I n private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as
contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The question as to real
party-in-interest is “whether he is the party whowouldbebenefitedorinjured
by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.” Importantly,
standing, because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is
different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real
party in interest or has capacity to sue. Standing is a special concern in
constitutional law because cases are brought not by parties who have been
personally injured by theoperationofalaw.Theplaintiffwhoassertsa"public
right"inassailinganallegedlyillegalofficialaction,doessoasarepresentative
of the general public. Hence, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief. The question in
standing is “whether such parties have ‘alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsfor
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’"
[ JUDGMENTSANDFINALORDERS-IMMUTABILITYOFJUDGMENTS(COA
DECISIONS)]
I tissettledthatalltheissuesbetweenthepartiesaredeemedresolvedandlaid
to rest once a judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the
Decision except to order its execution.Thecourtscannotmodifythejudgment
to correct perceived errors of law or fact. Public policy and sound practice
dictate that every litigation must come to an end at the risk of occasional
errors.Thisisthedoctrineofimmutabilityofafinaljudgment.Therule,however,
is subject to well-known exceptions, namely, the correction of clerical errors,
nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening events.
10
Parts and Contents; Formal Requirements - Rule 7
SPOUSES CORDERO V. OCTAVIANO
G.R. No. 241385 | July 7, 2020
FACTS
eonila Octaviano filed an ejectmentcaseagainstSpousesCorderobeforethe
L
MCTC which eventually ordered the spouses to vacate the premises.Whenthe
RTCaffirmedMTC’sdecision,thespousesappealedtotheCAthroughapetition
for review but the same was dismissed for failing to state the material date
showing when the RTC decision was received, thereby violating Section 2 (b),
Rule42oftheRulesofCourt.Thespousesalsofailedtoattachaclearlylegible
duplicate original or true copy of the RTC decision as well as other pertinent
portions of the records necessary for a thorough evaluation of the case.
DOCTRINE
he rationale for requiring a complete statement of material dates is to
T
determine whether the petition is timely filed. Accordingly, the petition must
showwhennoticeoftheassailedjudgmentororderorresolutionwasreceived;
when the motion for reconsideration was filed; and, when notice of its denial
was received. However, this Court may relax strict observance of the rules to
advance substantial justice.
11
Effect of Failure to Plead - Rule 9
VITARICH CORP. V. DAGMIL
G.R. No. 217138 | August 27, 2020
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorarifiledbypetitionerVitarich
T
against respondent Dagmil. Vitarich claimed that in issuing the default Order,
the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion, because respondent had
failed to file its answer within fifteen days after receiving the August 14, 1998
Order.
DOCTRINE
he rule is that the defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed
T
beforeadeclarationofdefaultandnoprejudiceiscausedtotheplaintiff.Where
theanswerisfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiodbutbeforethedefendantis
declaredindefaultandthereisnoshowingthatthedefendantintendstodelay
the case, the answer should be admitted. However, it is not mandatoryonthe
part of the trial court to admit an answer belatedly filed even though the
defendantisnotdeclaredindefault.Settledistherulethatananswerbelatedly
answered can only be admitted in the court'sdiscretion,providedthatthereis
justification for such belated action.1
ote: Rule 11 Section 1 (Answer to the Complaint)should be read with Rule 9
N
1
Section 3 (Declaration of Default).
12
Amended and Supplemental Pleadings - Rule 10
HEIRS OF TEJADA V. HAY
G.R. No. 250542 | October 10, 2022
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorarifiledbypetitionerHeirsof
T
Tejada against respondent Hay represented by his attorney-in-fact Litong.
Petitioners argue that the CA erred in affirming the disallowance of the
Amended Answer because: (1) amendments to pleadings are favored at any
stage of the proceedings; (2) the Motion for Leave was filedbeforeinitialtrial
andthecasewasstillpendingformediation;and(3)theamendmentwasaimed
neither to delay the proceedings nor to prejudice respondent but to clarify
certain matters. Hay, on the other hand, maintains that the allowance of the
AmendedAnswerwillonlycausefurtherdelayintheproceedingsasitcontains
arguments already stated in the original Answer, albeit written "in a more
scholarly, formal and well-researched manner."
DOCTRINE
ections1and3ofRule10oftheRulesofCourtallowamendmentstopleadings
S
"by adding to or striking out an inadequate allegation or description in any
other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be
determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner." The only limitation under the rules was that the leave to
amend the pleading "mayberefusedifitappearstothecourtthatthemotion
was made with intent to delay." Thus,as a matter of judicial policy, courts are
impelled to treat motions for leave to file amended pleadings with liberality
especiallywhensuchmotion"isfiledduringtheearlystagesoftheproceedings
or, at least, before trial.
13
Summons
Service of Summons
INTEGRATED MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC. V. STANDARD
INSURANCE CO., INC.
G.R. No. 210302 | August 27, 2020
FACTS
his case is Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed by petitioner
T
Integrated Micro Electronics, Inc. (Integrated Micro) against respondent
StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.(StandardInsurance).IntegratedMicroinsiststhat
the service of summons upon the legal assistant or secretary of the insurer's
in-housecounselisconsideredsubstantialcompliancesinceStandardInsurance
actually received the summons.
DOCTRINE
ervice of summons upon the legal assistantofStandardInsurance'sin-house
S
counselisimproper.Rule14,Section112 ofthe1997RulesofCourtprovidesthe
manner of serving summons to a corporation, thus:
ec. 11.Serviceupondomesticprivatejuridicalentity.Whenthedefendantisa
S
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be madeonthepresident,
managingpartner,generalmanager,corporatesecretary,treasurer,orin-house
counsel.
2
otably,thisprovisionamendedRule14,Section13ofthe1964RulesofCourt
N
that allowed service to an agent of a corporation. The new rule, however, has
specifically identified and limited the persons to whom service of summons
must be made. Contrary to Integrated Micro's assertion, the amendment
effectively abandoned the substantial compliance doctrine and restricted the
persons authorized to receive summons for juridical entities.
14
Judgments and Final Orders
SPOUSES POBLETE V. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND
MORTGAGE BANK
G.R. No. 228620 | June 15, 2020
FACTS
his case involves a Petitioner for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner
T
Spouses Poblete against respondent Banco Filipino. Spouses Poblete argued
that the execution of judgment mustincludeallitslogicaleffectsalthoughnot
expressed in the dispositive portion, yet the RTC and the CA interpreted the
Decision in a restrictive manner anddisregardeditstruemeaning.Incontrast,
Banco Filipino maintained that the RTCiscorrectinissuingawritofexecution
whichislimitedonlytothedispositiveportionandthatthemotionforissuance
of an alias writ of execution isaclearattemptofSpousesPobletetomodifya
final judgment.
DOCTRINE
he dispositive portion of a final andexecutoryjudgmentmaybeamendedto
T
rectify an inadvertent omission of what it shouldhavelogicallydecreedbased
on the discussion in the body of the Decision. However, it should be limitedto
explainingavagueorequivocalpartofthejudgmentwhichhampersitsproper
and full execution.
15
PAGUIO V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (En Banc)
G.R. No. 223547 | April 27, 2021
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule64,inrelationtoRule65of
T
the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Engineer Alex Paguio (Paguio) et al.
against respondents Commission on Audit (COA) et al. Petitioners Paguio and
Angeline Aguilar (Aguilar) are officers of Pagsanjan Water District (PAGWAD),
while the rest of the petitioners were members of the PAGWAD Board of
Directors. At issue is whether petitioners’ appeal before the COA proper was
filed beyond the reglementary period.
DOCTRINE
he doctrine of immutability of judgments provides thatapartytoanoriginal
T
action who fails to question an adverse judgment or decision by not filingthe
properremedywithintheperiodprescribedbylaw,losestherighttodoso,and
the judgment or decision, as to him or her, becomes final and binding. The
decisionbecomesimmutableandunalterable,andmaynolongerbemodifiedin
any respect, evenifthemodificationismeanttocorrecterroneousconclusions
of fact and law.
16
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 247787 | March 2, 2021
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 filed by petitioner
T
DevelopmentBankofthePhilippines(DBP)assailingrespondentCommissionon
Audit's(COA)Decision.Ononehand,theDBParguedthatthe1stCOADecision
is already final and executory without a motion for reconsideration or appeal
filed within 30 days from notice and that Pagaragan is a stranger to thecase
and has no legalpersonalitytomoveforareconsideration.Ontheotherhand,
the COA maintains that Pagaragan is a real party-in-interest because he is
concernedwiththeproperimplementationoftheDBP'scompensationplanand
in ensuring that its funds are properly managed.
DOCTRINE
[ PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3) - REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
(SECTION 2)]
udicialreviewmaybeexercisedonlywhenthepersonchallengingtheacthas
J
the requisite legal standing, whichreferstoapersonalandsubstantialinterest
inthecasesuchthathehassustained,orwillsustain,directinjuryasaresultof
itsenforcement.Theparty'sinterestmustalsobematerialasdistinguishedfrom
mere interest in thequestioninvolved,oramereincidentalinterest.Itmustbe
personalandnotbasedonadesiretovindicatetheconstitutionalrightofsome
third and unrelated party.
I n private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as
contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The question as to real
party-in-interest is “whether he is the party whowouldbebenefitedorinjured
by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.” Importantly,
standing, because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is
different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff is the real
party in interest or has capacity to sue. Standing is a special concern in
constitutional law because cases are brought not by parties who have been
personally injured by theoperationofalaw.Theplaintiffwhoassertsa"public
right"inassailinganallegedlyillegalofficialaction,doessoasarepresentative
of the general public. Hence, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief. The question in
standing is “whether such parties have ‘alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsfor
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’"
17
[ JUDGMENTSANDFINALORDERS-IMMUTABILITYOFJUDGMENTS(COA
DECISIONS)]
I tissettledthatalltheissuesbetweenthepartiesaredeemedresolvedandlaid
to rest once a judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the
Decision except to order its execution.Thecourtscannotmodifythejudgment
to correct perceived errors of law or fact. Public policy and sound practice
dictate that every litigation must come to an end at the risk of occasional
errors.Thisisthedoctrineofimmutabilityofafinaljudgment.Therule,however,
is subject to well-known exceptions, namely, the correction of clerical errors,
nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening events. Not one of
these exceptions is present in this case.
18
Remedies Before Finality of Judgment
Appeals and Other Modes of Review - Rules 40-45; Rule 64
SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION V. CENTRAL
AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC.
G.R. No. 253821 | 6 Mar 2023
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by
T
petitioner Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) against respondent Central
AzucareraDeBaisInc.(Central)questioningtheOrdersoftheCA. Ononehand,
SRA insists that the questions raised on appeal before the CA are factual in
nature; thus, it theorized that it availed of the proper remedy. In contrast,
CentralmaintainedthatthecasebeforetheRTCinvolvedpurequestionsoflaw
anddoesnothingeuponfactualproofandthatthecorrectremedytoassailthe
RTC's ruling is a petition for review on certiorari before the Court and not an
appeal to the CA; thus, the SRA's failure to availtheproperremedywithinthe
reglementary period rendered the RTC ruling final and executory.
DOCTRINE
Under the Rules of Court, there are three modes of appeal from RTC decisions:
irst Mode (Rule 41): Through an ordinary appeal before theCAunderRule41
F
where the decision assailed was rendered in the exercise of the RTC's original
jurisdiction.Inordinaryappealsquestionsoffactormixedquestionsoffactand
law may be raised.
econdMode(Rule42):ThroughapetitionforreviewbeforetheCAunderRule
S
42 where the decision assailed was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. In petitions for review, questions of fact, law, or mixed
questions of fact and law may be raised.
hird Mode (Rule 45): Through an appeal by certiorari before this Courtunder
T
Rule 45 where only questions of law shall be raised.
19
AUSTRIA V AAA AND BBB
G.R. No. 205275 | June 28, 2022
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rule45)filedbyMamerto
T
Austria (Mamerto) against AAA and BBB (private complainants). Mamerto
invokes his right against double jeopardy; reiterates that the Joint Orders of
acquittalarealreadyfinalandnotsubjecttoreview;andmaintainsthatprivate
complainants have no legal personality to question his acquittal.
DOCTRINE
o guidethebenchandthebar,theserulesshouldbeobservedwithrespectto
T
the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA, to wit:
1. T he private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil
liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or
herinterestinthecivilaspectofthecriminalcase.Theappealorpetition
for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private
offended party. The failuretocomplywiththisrequirementmayresultin
the denial or dismissal of the remedy.
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendibleperiodofthirty(30)daysfromnoticeifitappearsthatthe
resolutionoftheprivatecomplainant'sappealorpetitionforcertiorariwill
necessarilyaffectthecriminalaspectofthecaseortherighttoprosecute
(i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction,
elementsoftheoffense,prescription,admissibilityofevidence,identityof
theperpetratorofthecrime,modificationofpenalty,andotherquestions
that will require a review of the substantive merits of the criminal
proceedings,orthenullification/reversaloftheentireruling,orcausethe
reinstatementofthecriminalactionormeddlewiththeprosecutionofthe
offense, among other things). The comment of the OSG must state
whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of theprivateoffended
party. The judgment or order ofthereviewingcourtgrantingtheprivate
complainant's relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the
People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.
20
2. T he private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a
petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the
criminalaspectofthecaseortherighttoprosecute,unlessmadewiththe
OSG's conformity.
The private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the
reglementaryperiodtoappealorfileapetitionforcertiorari.Theprivate
complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG's conformity as
proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period.
Otherwise, the private complainant must allegeintheappealorpetition
for certiorari the fact of pendency of the request.IftheOSGdeniedthe
request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appealorpetitionfor
certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
3. T he reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice on the private
complainant's petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
accused,thedismissalofthecriminalcase,andtheinterlocutoryordersin
criminalproceedingsonthegroundofgraveabuseofdiscretionordenial
of due process.
4. These guidelines shall be prospective in application.
21
ANG V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 238203 | September 3, 2020
FACTS
his case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against
T
womenwhenaformerboyfriendsenttothegirlthepictureofanakedwoman,
not her, but with her face on it.
DOCTRINE
he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is
T
merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. One who seeks to avail of the right to
appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of the rules.
22
COLLADO V. DELA VEGA
G.R. No. 219511 (Resolution) | December 2, 2020
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rule45)filedbypetitioner
T
Victoria Collado (Collado) againstDr.EduardoDelaVega(DelaVega)assailing
the Decision of the CA. On one hand, Collado alleges that the CA should not
have disturbed the findings of the RTC which has the best opportunity to
observethemanneranddemeanorofwitnessesandthatthefundsshereceived
fromEduardoweremeantforinvestmentwiththeexpectation,butwithoutany
guarantee, of profit or return. On the other hand, Eduardo maintains that
Victoria raised factual issues which are beyond the ambit of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and that there is
preponderant evidence to establish Victoria's civil liability.
DOCTRINE
( REMEDIES BEFORE FINALITY OF JUDGMENT — APPEALS AND OTHER
MODES OF REVIEW – RULE 45)
enerally,itisnottheCourt'stasktogoovertheproofspresentedtoascertain
G
if they were weighed correctly. However, this ruleoflimitedjurisdictionadmits
exceptions and one of them is when the factual findings of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) are contradictory.
( PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (RULE 111); CIVIL LIABILITY
EX-DELICTO; IN CASES OF ACQUITTAL (SEE ALSO CIVIL CODE, ART. 29)
s a rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. However, an
A
acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases:
1. W heretheacquittalisbasedonreasonabledoubtasonlypreponderance
of evidence is required in civil cases;
2. Where the court declared that the accused's liability is not criminal, but
only civil in nature; and
3. Where the civil liability does not arise from, or is not based upon the
criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.
23
MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET V. MUNICIPALITY
OF SUGPON, ILOCOS SUR
G.R. No. 241370 | April 20, 2022
FACTS
I n this case, respondent Sugpon asserted that only questions of law may be
raised inapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
Nonetheless,BakunraisedafactualquestionbyaskingtheCourttore-examine
and weigh again the pieces ofevidencepresentedbythepartiestodetermine
what evidence satisfies the required quantum of proof of preponderance of
evidence.
DOCTRINE
heSupremeCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Generally,onlyquestionsoflawcanbe
T
raised inapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,
subject to limited exceptions. To successfully invoke these exceptions,
petitioners must prove the need for this Court to examine the lower court's
factualfindings.Merelyinvokinganexceptionwithoutproofwillnotwarrantan
examination beyond the limits of Rule 45.
24
Remedies After Judgment Becomes Final
Annulment of Judgment - Rule 47
Thomas v. Trono
G.R. No. 241032 (Resolution) | March 15, 2021
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Review onCertiorariassailingthedismissalof
T
the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner Charnnel Shane
Thomas (Charnnel). Charnnel maintains that she wasnotaffordeddueprocess
whenshewasnotallowedtoparticipateintheproceedingsforreconsideration
before the RTC.
DOCTRINE
petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in
A
naturethatitmaybeavailedofonlywhenotherremediesarewanting,andonly
if the judgment, final order, or final resolution sought to be annulled was
rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction, or through extrinsic fraud. Under
Section2,Rule47oftheRulesofCourt,thegroundsforannulmentofjudgment
are: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however,
recognizes a third ground — denial of due process of law.
25
Execution, Satisfaction, and Effects of Judgments (Rule 39)
CITY GOVERNMENT OF TACLOBAN V. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 221554 (Resolution) | February 3, 2021
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner City
T
Government of Tacloban filed against public respondent CA and private
respondents Heirs ofSacramento.Atissueinthecaseatbarwasthepropriety
of the CA’s action in applying the principle of res judicata in dismissing the
Petition for Certiorari filed in the CA.
DOCTRINE
hedoctrineofresjudicatarequiresthatstabilitybeaccordedtojudgmentslest
T
there would be endless controversies. The relitigation of issues already settled
burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and
wastesvaluabletimeandenergythatcouldbedevotedtoworthycauses.where
there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of
causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters
actuallyanddirectlycontrovertedanddeterminedandnotastomattersmerely
involvedtherein.Thisistheconceptofresjudicataknownas"conclusivenessof
judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly
adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an actionbeforea
competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively
settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the
partiesandtheirprivies,whetherornottheclaim,demand,purpose,orsubject
matter of the two actions is the same.
ote: Read this case in relation to Rule 39 Section 47 (Effect of Judgmentsor
N
Final Orders).
26
PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. V. TIG
INSURANCE CO.
G.R. No. 256177 | June 27, 2022
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorarifiledbypetitionerPioneer
T
InsuranceagainstTIGInsuranceCompany(Cleanwater’ssuccessor-in-interest).
Ononehand,Pioneermaintainsthatpublicpolicyagainstnon-assertionofstale
claims was violated when the arbitral award was confirmed, recognized, and
enforced and that the New York Civil Practice Law andRulesprovidesthatan
action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed, such as insurance
contract claims, shall be commenced within six years; thus, since Clearwater
only enforced its claims against Pioneer 16 years after Pioneer rejected
Clearwater's demand, the 6-year prescription period under the New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules had already set in.. On the other hand, TIG Insurance
asserted that Pioneer cannolongerraiseprescriptionbecauseRule19.7ofthe
Special ADR Rules prohibits apartyfromquestioningthemeritsofthearbitral
award;thattheawardhadlongbecomefinalandexecutorywhenPioneerfailed
to file any petition to vacate it; and that public policy is best served if the
arbitral award is confirmed and enforced in the Philippines.
DOCTRINE
he Philippine court may only refuse to recognize orenforceaforeignarbitral
T
awardwhenitsenforcementwouldbeagainstthefundamentaltenetsofjustice
andmorality,orwouldblatantlybeinjurioustothepublic,ortheinterestsofthe
society.Mereerrorsintheinterpretationofthelaworfactualfindingswouldnot
suffice to warrant refusal of enforcement under the public policy ground. The
illegality or immorality of the award must reach a certain threshold such that
enforcement of the same would be against Our State's fundamental tenets of
justiceandmorality,orwouldblatantlybeinjurioustothepublic,ortheinterests
of the society.
ote: Read this case in relation to Rule 39 Section 48 (Effect of foreign
N
judgments or final orders)
27
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Radio Philippines
Network, Inc.
G.R. No. 190517 | July 27, 2022
FACTS
heproprietyoftheorderofexecutionofamoneyjudgmentisthecoreissuein
T
this Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Metropolitan Bank
againstrespondentsRadioPhilippinesandBanahawBroadcastingassailingthe
Court of Appeals Decision.
DOCTRINE
nder the rules, the executing officer is required to first demand from the
U
judgment debtors the immediatepaymentofthefullamountstatedinthewrit
of execution and all lawful fees. The executing officer shall demand the
paymenteitherincash,certifiedbankcheckoranyothermodeofpaymentthat
is acceptabletothejudgmentcreditor.Ifthejudgmentdebtorscannotpaythe
judgmentobligationusingthesemethods,theycanopttochoosewhichamong
their personal properties can be levied upon. If the judgment debtors do not
exercisethisoptionimmediatelyorwhentheyareabsentorcannotbelocated,
they then waive such right and the executing officer can levy the judgment
debtors'personalproperties,ifany,andthentherealpropertiesifthepersonal
properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. The executing officer
may also levy personalpropertybygarnishmentbyreachingcreditsbelonging
tothejudgmentdebtorsandowingtothemfromastrangertothelitigation.In
this mode of satisfying the judgment known as garnishment, the executing
officer levies on the debts due the judgment debtors including bank deposits,
financial interests, royalties, commissions, and other personal property not
capable of manual delivery in the possession or under the control of third
parties. The levy may be done only if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or
part of the obligation in cash or in such other manner acceptable to the
judgment obligee.
28
Provisional Remedies
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order - Rule 58
DE LIMA V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 199972 & 206118 | August 15, 2022
FACTS
his case involves, among other, the CA’s issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
T
Injunction which provisionally restrained the implementation of the Joint
Memorandum.
DOCTRINE
udicialcourtesyisneitherasubstitutenoragroundfortheissuanceofaWPI
J
under the Rules. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that a preliminary
injunction may be granted when it is established:
1. T hat the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or
part of such relief consists in restraining the commission orcontinuance
oftheactoractscomplainedof,orinrequiringtheperformanceofanact
or acts either for a limited period or perpetually;
2. That the commission, continuanceornon-performanceoftheactoracts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
3. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is
attemptingtodo,orisprocuringorsufferingtobedonesomeactoracts
probably in violationoftherightsoftheapplicantrespectingthesubject
of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.
udicial courtesy is exercised by suspending the proceedings before a lower
J
court,evenwithoutaninjunctionoranordertothateffectfromahighercourt,
to avoid mooting the matter raised before the higher court. Such exercise is
merely as a matter of respect and practical considerations. Whereas, the
issuance ofaWPI,althoughitalsopreservesthestatusquo,doesnotsuspend
theproceedingsinthemaincase.Itonlypreventsthethreatenedorcontinuous
irremediable injury to the party who has a clear legal right, entitled to be
judicially protected during the pendency of the main case. Courts are
consistently reminded that the power to issue the writ "should be exercised
sparingly,withtheutmostcare,andwithgreatcautionanddeliberation."AWPI
may be issued only upon showing of a clear and positive right.
29
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Rule 65)
PUREGOLD PRICE CLUB, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 244374 (Resolution) | February 15, 2022
FACTS
I n this case, petitioner PPCI asserted that the CA gravely erred in giving due
course to Renato's petition for certiorari despite being filed out of time or
beyond the 60-dayreglementaryperiod.Thesamewasallegedlyfiledfourteen
(14) days late.
DOCTRINE
stheRulenowstands,petitionsforcertiorarimustbefiledstrictlywithinsixty
A
(60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for
reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period
within which to file a petition for certiorari, save in exceptional or meritorious
cases anchored on special or compelling reasons.
30
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70)
GALACGAC V. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 221384 (Resolution) | November 9, 2020
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule45.Petitioner
T
BenignoGalagcac(Benigno)filedanunlawfuldetainercaseagainstrespondent
Reynaldo Bautista (Reynaldo). However, Benigno was not able to fully
substantiate his supposed acts of tolerance from the start of the occupation.
DOCTRINE
hecourtmaydismissacomplaintforunlawfuldetainerbasedonlackofcause
T
ofactioniftheplaintiff'ssupposedactoftoleranceisnotpresentrightfromthe
start of the defendant's possession.
31
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL
WRITS
KAIZEN BUILDERS, INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 226894 & 247647 | September 3, 2020
FACTS
aizen Builders, petitioner, defaulted on its payments to its obligation with
K
Ofelia Ursais (Ursais), prompting the latter to file a complaint for a sum of
money. The RTC ruled in favor of Ursais and ordered Kaizen Builders to pay.
Kaizen builders went to the Court of Appeals and filed for corporate
rehabilitation, during which, a rehabilitation court issued a Commencement
Order, suspending all actions for the enforcement of claims against Kaizen
Builders.
DOCTRINE
he suspension of claims during corporate rehabilitation proceedings takes
T
precedence over other legal actions, and courts must respect and adhere to
stayordersissuedbyrehabilitationcourtstopromotetheorderlyadministration
of justice.
32
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons
GOZUM V. PAPPAS
G.R. No. 197147 (Resolution) | February 3, 2021
FACTS
his case involves the appointment of an administrator in the estate of
T
Edmundo Cea and Gloria Novelo (Gloria). When Gloria died intestate, Salvio
Fortuno(Salvio)wasnamedastheexecutoroftheestate.Herdaughter,Norma
filedanomnibusmotiontorevokeSalvio’sappointmentasspecialadministrator
of Gloria’s estate and to appoint herself instead, which was approved by the
court.
DOCTRINE
he appointment of a special administrator is within the discretion of the
T
probatecourt,andthecourtmayconsiderfactorsotherthanthoseenumerated
intherulesforregularadministrators.Thespecialadministratorisanofficerof
thecourtandissubjecttothecourt’ssupervisionandcontrol.Theappointment
of a special administrator may be revoked if the person appointed fails to
perform their duties or if their appointment is no longer necessary.
33
Change of Name (Rule 103)
REPUBLIC V. MALIGAYA
G.R. No. 233068 | November 9, 2020
FACTS
erly Maligaya (Merly) filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth
M
certificate under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before theRTC,tochangeher
first name from "MERLE" to "MERLY" and her date of birth from "February15,
1959" to "November 26, 1958. After trial, the RTC granted the petition, despite
Merly having failed toimpleadpersonswhohaveaclaimoranyinterestinthe
proceedings, with respect to her date of birth. The OSG moved for
reconsideration on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction to rectify the
errorinMerly'sfirstnamebecausethemistakeisclericalthatmustbecorrected
through administrative proceedings under Republic Act (RA) No. 9048, as
amended by RA No. 10172.
DOCTRINE
he term "substantial" means consisting of or relating to substance, or
T
something that is important or essential.Inrelationtochangeorcorrectionof
an entry in the birth certificate, substantial referstothatwhichestablishes,or
affects the substantive right of the person on whose behalf the change or
correctionisbeingsought.Thus,changeswhichmayaffectthecivilstatusfrom
legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, civil status, or citizenship ofaperson
are substantial in character.
34
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry (Rule 108; R.A. 9048, as amended by
R.A. No. 10172)
REPUBLIC V. ONTUCA Y PELEÑO
G.R. No. 232053 | July 15, 2020
FACTS
his case involves a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for the
T
correctionofcivilstatusofAnabelleOntuca,forhertoappearnotmarried,and
ofthenameofherdaughter,inthelatter’sbirthcertificate.Thetrialcourtthen
grantedthepetition.ThepetitionerRepublicmovedforreconsideration,arguing
that RTC has nojurisdictiontocorrectAnnabelle'sfirstnameandmiddlename
under Rule 108 because the errors are clerical that can be corrected through
administrativeproceedingsunderRepublicAct(RA)No.9048,asamendedand
that the change inthedateandplaceofmarriageissubstantial,thustheOSG
should have been impleaded.
DOCTRINE
he term "substantial" means consisting of or relating to substance, or
T
something that is important or essential.Inrelationtochangeorcorrectionof
an entry in the birth certificate, substantial referstothatwhichestablishes,or
affects the substantive right of the person on whose behalf the change or
correctionisbeingsought.Thus,changeswhichmayaffectthecivilstatusfrom
legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, civilstatus,orcitizenshipofaperson,
are substantial in character. The correction of entries in the civil register
pertaining to citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriageinvolvessubstantialalterations,whichmaybecorrected,andthetrue
factsestablished,providethepartiesaggrievedbytheerrortoavailthemselves
of the appropriate adversary proceedings.
35
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)
AUSTRIA v. AAA
G.R. No. 205275 | June 28, 2022
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rule45)filedbyMamerto
T
Austria (Mamerto) against AAA and BBB (private complainants). Mamerto
invokes his right against double jeopardy; reiterates that the Joint Orders of
acquittalarealreadyfinalandnotsubjecttoreview;andmaintainsthatprivate
complainants have no legal personality to question his acquittal.
DOCTRINE
o guidethebenchandthebar,theserulesshouldbeobservedwithrespectto
T
the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in
criminal proceedings before the SC and the CA, to wit:
1. T he private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil
liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or
herinterestinthecivilaspectofthecriminalcase.Theappealorpetition
for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private
offended party. The failuretocomplywiththisrequirementmayresultin
the denial or dismissal of the remedy.
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendibleperiodofthirty(30)daysfromnoticeifitappearsthatthe
resolutionoftheprivatecomplainant'sappealorpetitionforcertiorariwill
necessarilyaffectthecriminalaspectofthecaseortherighttoprosecute
(i.e., existence of probable cause, venue or territorial jurisdiction,
elementsoftheoffense,prescription,admissibilityofevidence,identityof
theperpetratorofthecrime,modificationofpenalty,andotherquestions
that will require a review of the substantive merits of the criminal
proceedings,orthenullification/reversaloftheentireruling,orcausethe
reinstatementofthecriminalactionormeddlewiththeprosecutionofthe
offense, among other things). The comment of the OSG must state
whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of theprivateoffended
party. The judgment or order ofthereviewingcourtgrantingtheprivate
complainant's relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the
People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.
36
2. T he private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a
petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the
criminalaspectofthecaseortherighttoprosecute,unlessmadewiththe
OSG's conformity.
3. T he private complainant must request the OSG's conformity within the
reglementaryperiodtoappealorfileapetitionforcertiorari.Theprivate
complainant must attach the original copy of the OSG's conformity as
proof in case the request is granted within the reglementary period.
Otherwise, the private complainant must allegeintheappealorpetition
for certiorari the fact of pendency of the request.IftheOSGdeniedthe
request for conformity, the Court shall dismiss the appealorpetitionfor
certiorari for lack of legal personality of the private complainant.
The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice on the private
complainant's petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
accused,thedismissalofthecriminalcase,andtheinterlocutoryordersin
criminalproceedingsonthegroundofgraveabuseofdiscretionordenial
of due process.
4. These guidelines shall be prospective in application.
37
Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111)
Civil Liability Ex-delicto; In cases of Acquittal (See also Civil Code, Art.
36)
COLLADO V. DE VEGA
G.R. No. 219511 (Resolution) | December 2, 2020
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rule45)filedbypetitioner
T
Victoria Collado (Collado) againstDr.EduardoDelaVega(DelaVega)assailing
the Decision of the CA. On one hand, Collado alleges that the CA should not
have disturbed the findings of the RTC which has the best opportunity to
observethemanneranddemeanorofwitnessesandthatthefundsshereceived
fromEduardoweremeantforinvestmentwiththeexpectation,butwithoutany
guarantee, of profit or return. On the other hand, Eduardo maintains that
Victoria raised factual issues which are beyond the ambit of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and that there is
preponderant evidence to establish Victoria's civil liability.
DOCTRINE
s a rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. However, an
A
acquittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases:
1. W heretheacquittalisbasedonreasonabledoubtasonlypreponderance
of evidence is required in civil cases;
2. Where the court declared that the accused's liability is not criminal, but
only civil in nature; and
3. Where the civil liability does not arise from, or is not based upon the
criminal act of which the accused was acquitted.
38
Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)
Authorized Officers; Determination of Probable Cause - Sections 2-4
MACASIL V. FRAUD AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION
OFFICE-COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 226898 (Resolution) | May 11, 2021
ote: Also see Criminal Law Doctrine as Regards Falsification
N
under Article 171 of the RPC
FACTS
hisisaPetitionforCertiorari(Rule65)filedbypetitionerJoelMacasil(Macasil)
T
against respondentsFraudAuditandInvestigationOffice(FAIO)-Commission
On Audit (COA), Public Assistance And Corruption Prevention Office
Ombudsman - Visayas Regional Office No. VIII, and the Office of the
Ombudsman (Visayas) assailing the Office of the Ombudsman's Consolidated
Resolution finding prima facie case for violation of the Anti-GraftandCorrupt
Practices Act and Falsification.
DOCTRINE
robable cause for filing a criminal information constitutes facts sufficient to
P
engender a well-founded belief that a crime hasbeencommittedandthatthe
respondent is probably guilty thereof. When at the outset the existence of
probable causetoformasufficientbeliefastotheguiltoftheaccusedcannot
be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the
trauma of going through a trial.
39
Arrest, Search, and Seizures
Search Warrant - Rule 126; Lawful Warrantless Arrest - Rule 113, Sec. 5
SULLANO Y SANTIA V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 232147 | June 8, 2020
FACTS
his is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by
T
petitioner-accused Arturo, who was charged with violation of the gun ban
during the 2010 election period pursuant to BP Blg. 881. Arturo questions the
legality of his warrantless arrest to dispel the jurisdiction of the court overhis
person. Notably, Arturo entered his plea during arraignment and actively
participated in the trial, and did not move to quash the information on the
grounds of illegality of his arrest.
DOCTRINE
he Court has consistently held that any objection by an accused to anarrest
T
without a warrant must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. An accused may be estopped from assailing the
illegalityofhisarrestifhefailstochallengetheinformationagainsthimbefore
hisarraignment.And,sincethelegalityofanarrestaffectsonlythejurisdiction
of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in his arrest may be
deemed cured when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court.
40
Bail (Rule 114); Recognizance Act of 2012 (R.A.
No. 10389)
PEOPLE V. NAPOLES
G.R. No. 247611 | January 13, 2021
FACTS
apoles was convicted of Plunder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
N
reclusionperpetua.Pendingtheresolutionofherappeal,havingbeendetained
in the Correctional Institute for Women (CIW), NapolesfiledanUrgentMotion
for Recognizance/Bail or House Arrest for Humanitarian Reasons due to
COVID-19. She alleged that she is at risk of contracting COVID-19 inside the
prison due to her Diabetes.
DOCTRINE
hepresumptionofinnocenceandtheConstitutionalrighttobailendafterthe
T
accused's conviction of a capital offense. Indeed, under the Rules of Court,
upon the accused’s conviction by the Regional Trial Court of a non-capital
offense, admission to bail isdiscretionary.However,whenthepenaltyimposed
on the accused exceeds six years, and any ofthebail-negatingcircumstances
exists, the accused’s application for bail must be denied or canceled.
41
Motion to Quash Information (Rule 117)
Double Jeopardy - Section 7
JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI
G.R. No. 236618 | August 27, 2020
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rule45)filedbypetitioner
T
JCLV Realty against respondent Mangali. JCLV Realty contends that the
authority of the OSG applies only in ordinary appeals and that the private
complainantcanfileaspecialcivilactionforcertioraritoquestionthecriminal
and civil aspect of the case; yet, the CA mistook its petition as an ordinary
appeal. On the other hand, Mangali maintains that JCLV Realty has no legal
standingtofilecertiorariproceedingsbecausethereliefssoughtdirectlyaffects
the criminal aspect of the case; hence, the OSG's consent is necessary.
DOCTRINE
he right against double jeopardy is a constitutional right deeply rooted in
T
jurisprudence. The doctrinehasseveralavowedpurposes.Primarily,itprevents
the State from using its criminal processes as an instrument of harassmentto
wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It also
serves the additional purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal,
from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction.
And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction, from retrying the
defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. Double jeopardy,
therefore, provides three related protections:
1 . A gainst a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal,
2. Against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and
3. Against multiple punishments for the same offense.
he constitutional mandate is a rule of finality. A single prosecution for any
T
offense is all the law allows. It protects an accused from harassment, enables
himtotreatwhathadtranspiredasaclosedchapterinhislife,eithertoexultin
his freedom or to be resigned to whatever penalty is imposed, andisabarto
unnecessarylitigation,initselftime-consumingandexpense-producingforthe
State as well. The ordeal of a criminal prosecution is inflicted only once, not
whenever it pleases the state to do so.
heinviolabilityoftherightoftheaccusedagainstdoublejeopardyisreflected
T
in the skeptical attitude taken by the Supreme Court towards petitions for
certiorari disputing decisions acquitting an accused.
42
Trial (Rule 119)
Demurrer to Evidence (Section 23)
JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI
G.R. No. 236618 | August 27, 2020
FACTS
hiscaseinvolvesaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Rule45)filedbypetitioner
T
JCLV Realty against respondent Mangali. Through this Petition, JCLV
questioned the Order granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case.
DOCTRINE
private complainant cannot question the Order granting the demurrer to
A
evidence in a criminal case absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due
process. The interest of the offended partyislimitedonlytothecivilaspectof
the case.
43
CACDAC V. MERCADO
G.R. No. 242731 | June 14, 2021
FACTS
uring the proceedings of the case, Cacdac filed a demurrer to evidence
D
[withoutleaveofcourt],whichpartakesofthenatureofamotiontodismissthe
case for failure of the prosecution to prove hisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Cacdac asserts that he was not afforded the chance to present counter
evidence on his civil liability after his demurrer on the criminal aspect of the
case was granted.
DOCTRINE
articularly,ademurrertoevidencemaybefiledwithorwithoutleaveofcourt,
P
each having different effects on the right of the accused to present evidence.
Under the rules, it is explicit that if the court denies the demurrer filed with
leave of court, the accused may still adduce counter evidence on the criminal
and civil aspects of the case. Jurisprudence likewise explains that if the court
grants the demurrer filed with leave of court resulting in the dismissal of the
criminalaction,theaccusedmaystilladduceevidenceonthecivilaspectofthe
case.
ntheotherhand,whenademurrertoevidenceisfiledwithoutleaveofcourt,
O
the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the whole case
based on the evidence for the prosecution. The trial court is called upon to
decide the criminal case including its civil aspect. The remedy of demurrer to
evidence now carries a caveat to prevent it from being used to delay the
proceedings.
44
EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)
Key Concepts
Admissibility; Relevance and Competence - Rule 128
RE: JOHN MARK TAMAÑO
A.C. No. 12274 (Resolution) | October 7, 2020
FACTS
nadministrativecasewasfiledagainstAtty.JohnMarkTamañoforhisfailure
A
to record in his notarial books United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association’s
(UCSPAI) General Information Sheets (GIS) in violation of the Notarial Rules.
Thus, his notarial commission got revoked. Atty. Tamaño claimed that UCSPAI
benefited from the notarization because the SEC required submission of
notarized GIS.
DOCTRINE
otarization converts a private document into a public document, making it
N
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due
execution. Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized documents,
notaries public must ensure proper recording of documents in their notarial
registers, lest, falsely making it appear that they were notarized when in fact
they werenot;theconfidenceofthepublicintheintegrityofdocumentswillbe
undermined.
45
PEOPLE V. CAMPOS
G.R. No. 252212 | July 14, 2021
FACTS
ppellantsprayforthereversaloftheirconvictionallegingthattheprosecution
A
failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They claim that the
stabbing of the victim was done in self-defense. They take exception to the
findingofthetrialcourtregardingthepresenceofconspiracyassertingthatthe
merepresenceofBingkyatthesceneofthecrimedoesnotprovetheexistence
of conspiracy.
DOCTRINE
ell-settled is the ruleincriminalcasesthattheprosecutionhastheburdenof
W
proof to establish the guilt of the accusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.However,
once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a
justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shiftedtohim.He
cannotrelyontheweaknessoftheevidencefortheprosecutionforevenifitis
weak,itcannotbedoubtedespeciallyafterhehimselfhasadmittedthekilling.
This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order.
ote: Correlate this case with the concept of Self-Defense as a Justifying
N
Circumstance (Art. 11, RPC [par. 1])
46
Kinds
Testimonial Evidence - Rule 130, C; Opinion - Sections 51-53
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. DAMPILAG
G.R. No. 238774 | June 10, 2020
FACTS
hiscaseisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45filedbypetitioner
T
CSC against respondent Dampilag. One of the contentions raised in this case
was the absence of a handwriting expert in this case involving forged
documents.
DOCTRINE
I nHeirsofSeveraP.Gregoriov.CourtofAppeals,theCourtheldthatduetothe
technicality of the procedure involved in the examination of the forged
documents, the expertise ofquestioneddocumentexaminersisusuallyhelpful;
however,resorttoquestioneddocumentexaminersisnotmandatoryandwhile
probably useful, they are not indispensable in examining or comparing
handwriting. Besides, when the dissimilarity between the genuine and false
specimens of writing is visible to the naked eye, resort to technical rules isno
longer necessary.
47
TURALBA Y VILLEGAS V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 216453 | March 16, 2022
FACTS
ligario was convicted of carnapping. The RTC and the CA did not give
O
credence to the medical assessment of the mental condition of OligariobyDr.
Evangelista,whoattestedtohisillness,andmentionedintheClinicalSummary
that his “condition could lead to unusual behavior, faulty judgment, irrational
thoughts, impulsive acts, and break from reality.”
DOCTRINE
o establish insanity, opinion testimony is required which may be given by a
T
witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused, has rational basis to
conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception, or is
qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.
48
Presentation of Evidence
STRONG FORT WAREHOUSING CORP. V. BANTA
G.R. No. 222369 & 222502 (Resolution) | November 16, 2020
FACTS
his case involves a Petition for ReviewonCertiorarifiledbypetitionerStrong
T
Fort against respondent Bantaconcerningthevalidityofrealestatemortgage
contracts involved. Strong Fort contendsthattheCAerredinnotreversingthe
trial court when it admitted Remedios' rebuttal evidence that had been
expunged from the records, such as the NBI's QDR and the PNP Crime
Laboratory Report. Corollarily, since the NBI's QDR and the PNP Crime
Laboratory Report had been expunged, the opinions of handwriting experts,
Arcadio Ramos and Florenda Negre regarding the said documents become
mere hearsay and baseless.
DOCTRINE
hile it is settled that resorttohandwritingexpertsisnotindispensableinthe
W
finding of forgery, their opinions are useful and may serve as additional
evidencetobuttresstheclaimofforgery.Owingtotheirspecialknowledgeand
training,theycanhelpdeterminefundamental,significantdifferencesinwriting
characteristics between the questioned and the standard or sample specimen
signatures, as well as the movement and manner of execution strokes.
49
You might also like
- 5 2024 Golden Notes Labor Law and Social LegislationsDocument479 pages5 2024 Golden Notes Labor Law and Social Legislationsveras.donnabelle.cNo ratings yet
- Labor-Law-2022-Ust-Golden-Notes-Confidential PDFDocument381 pagesLabor-Law-2022-Ust-Golden-Notes-Confidential PDFAthena Antenna93% (15)
- 2023 Ust Golden Notes Civil LawDocument846 pages2023 Ust Golden Notes Civil LawAejy Ducz100% (1)
- 4 2021 UST Golden Notes Taxation LawDocument465 pages4 2021 UST Golden Notes Taxation LawRomme Andrae Velasco100% (4)
- 8 2021 UST Golden Notes Legal and Judicial EthicsDocument264 pages8 2021 UST Golden Notes Legal and Judicial EthicsColleen Bunyi100% (3)
- 2021 Golden Notes Criminal LawDocument471 pages2021 Golden Notes Criminal LawAngelo Pingol100% (6)
- 2019-Golden Notes-Civil Law PDFDocument710 pages2019-Golden Notes-Civil Law PDFErika Angela Galceran95% (22)
- Clicking: 17 Trends That Move Your Business And Your LifeFrom EverandClicking: 17 Trends That Move Your Business And Your LifeRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (13)
- Restorative Justice UnicefDocument9 pagesRestorative Justice UnicefAlberto NicholsNo ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - Remedial LawDocument109 pages(For Public) CD - Remedial LawRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - Labor LawDocument97 pages(For Public) CD - Labor LawRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- [for Public] CD - Civil LawDocument83 pages[for Public] CD - Civil LawJC Sta MonicaNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAWDocument50 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWDocument19 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWDocument40 pages(For Public) CD - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWDocument34 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- [For Public] CD - LEGAL ETHICSDocument38 pages[For Public] CD - LEGAL ETHICSLucky James AbelNo ratings yet
- (For Public) Doctrines - Taxation & Commercial LawDocument19 pages(For Public) Doctrines - Taxation & Commercial Lawmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWDocument39 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWDocument39 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSDocument20 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWDocument37 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWDocument37 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - Criminal LawDocument79 pages(For Public) CD - Criminal LawRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAWDocument43 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWDocument34 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- [For Public] CD - LABOR LAWDocument97 pages[For Public] CD - LABOR LAWLucky James AbelNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAWDocument43 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSDocument20 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- SBCA CBO NUAS - Civil Law (2022)Document36 pagesSBCA CBO NUAS - Civil Law (2022)Darlene GanubNo ratings yet
- AUSL The Law Pertaining To Private Personal and Commercial RelationsDocument68 pagesAUSL The Law Pertaining To Private Personal and Commercial RelationsRedraine ReyesNo ratings yet
- AUSL The Law Pertaining To The State and Its Relationship With Its CitizensDocument146 pagesAUSL The Law Pertaining To The State and Its Relationship With Its CitizensRedraine ReyesNo ratings yet
- SBCA CBO FAQs - Remedial Law (2022)Document78 pagesSBCA CBO FAQs - Remedial Law (2022)marvin ninoNo ratings yet
- SBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Labor Law 2022 PDFDocument47 pagesSBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Labor Law 2022 PDFdaryl canozaNo ratings yet
- 2 Executive Order On BADACDocument8 pages2 Executive Order On BADACSto Niño PagadianNo ratings yet
- 2017 Beda Civil Law Pre-WeekDocument59 pages2017 Beda Civil Law Pre-WeekKevin HernandezNo ratings yet
- Golden Notes - Civil Law PDFDocument104 pagesGolden Notes - Civil Law PDFSuper ScribdoNo ratings yet
- 2013 remGN PDFDocument456 pages2013 remGN PDFAtoy Liby OjeñarNo ratings yet
- 152 PDFDocument152 pages152 PDFJaybel Ng BotolanNo ratings yet
- Mercantile Law: 2017 Golden Notes Faculty of Civil Law University of Santo Tomas ManilaDocument97 pagesMercantile Law: 2017 Golden Notes Faculty of Civil Law University of Santo Tomas ManilaJaybel Ng BotolanNo ratings yet
- Gn2015 Poli FinalDocument385 pagesGn2015 Poli FinalRio Angelika LaotNo ratings yet
- Ust 2013 Golden Notes-Civil Law (1) Old VersionDocument517 pagesUst 2013 Golden Notes-Civil Law (1) Old Versiontiny a100% (2)
- NNNNDocument61 pagesNNNNmariaNo ratings yet
- Legal Eth GN 2018Document232 pagesLegal Eth GN 2018Emos100% (1)
- 2018 Legal and Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises Ust Golden Notes 1 51Document51 pages2018 Legal and Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises Ust Golden Notes 1 51sandovalamber01No ratings yet
- SBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Mercantile Law 2022 PDFDocument18 pagesSBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Mercantile Law 2022 PDFdaryl canozaNo ratings yet
- SBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES - Civil Law (2022)Document69 pagesSBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES - Civil Law (2022)Riffy Oisinoid100% (1)
- GGGDocument29 pagesGGGmariaNo ratings yet
- List of CSG and Cosg Officers 2018-2019Document5 pagesList of CSG and Cosg Officers 2018-2019NOMER NAVARRO VARUANo ratings yet
- Bauang ChapterDocument1 pageBauang ChapterPeace YoNo ratings yet
- Executive Order 02-22 - Revitalizing Anti-Drug Abuse Council - BadacDocument4 pagesExecutive Order 02-22 - Revitalizing Anti-Drug Abuse Council - BadacCollene FayeNo ratings yet
- The Law Pertaining To The State and Its Relationship With Its CitizensDocument146 pagesThe Law Pertaining To The State and Its Relationship With Its CitizensBest Bar ever 2021No ratings yet
- GN 2015 - Labor Law PDFDocument249 pagesGN 2015 - Labor Law PDFRed Velvet100% (1)
- Ust 2013 Golden Notes-Political LawDocument318 pagesUst 2013 Golden Notes-Political LawCid Benedict PabalanNo ratings yet
- Labor LawDocument224 pagesLabor LawCezz TataNo ratings yet
- 2013 mercGN PDFDocument328 pages2013 mercGN PDFMarivic EscuetaNo ratings yet
- Shapers: Reinvent the Way You Work and Change the FutureFrom EverandShapers: Reinvent the Way You Work and Change the FutureRating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5 (2)
- WATER : DRINK UNCONTAMINATED WATER FOR DETOXIFICATION, BRAIN FITNESS, AND HEALTHFrom EverandWATER : DRINK UNCONTAMINATED WATER FOR DETOXIFICATION, BRAIN FITNESS, AND HEALTHNo ratings yet
- Notes for the Journey Within: Essentials of the Art of LivingFrom EverandNotes for the Journey Within: Essentials of the Art of LivingNo ratings yet
- Accountability: Why We Need to Count Social and Environmental Cost for A Livable FutureFrom EverandAccountability: Why We Need to Count Social and Environmental Cost for A Livable FutureNo ratings yet
- Commercial Law - Corporation LawDocument18 pagesCommercial Law - Corporation LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Commercial Law - Intellectual Property LawDocument22 pagesCommercial Law - Intellectual Property LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Beda Crim - PWLMTDocument123 pagesBeda Crim - PWLMTAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Criminal Law Care 2023Document229 pagesCriminal Law Care 2023Aejy Ducz100% (1)
- FAQ Canons of Prof Ethics Lex ParetoDocument7 pagesFAQ Canons of Prof Ethics Lex ParetoAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- FAQ Code of Prof Responsibility Lex ParetoDocument14 pagesFAQ Code of Prof Responsibility Lex ParetoAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Mnemonics Political Law PDFDocument85 pagesMnemonics Political Law PDFAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- 2007-2003 Criminal LawDocument44 pages2007-2003 Criminal LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Golden Beacon On Mercantile Law - 2019Document46 pagesGolden Beacon On Mercantile Law - 2019Aejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Criminal LawDocument27 pagesCriminal LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- In Re: EdillonDocument2 pagesIn Re: EdillonOrange Zee MelineNo ratings yet
- Arbiter's Report On Conduct of Bendigo CouncillorsDocument4 pagesArbiter's Report On Conduct of Bendigo CouncillorsJoe HinchliffeNo ratings yet
- Advantages and Disadvantages of RDocument33 pagesAdvantages and Disadvantages of RJoanne Ferrer100% (2)
- HRC 1Document20 pagesHRC 1Anamaria ElenaNo ratings yet
- IN RE: PET FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - Document No. 68Document4 pagesIN RE: PET FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - Document No. 68Justia.comNo ratings yet
- Agrarian Reform CasesDocument11 pagesAgrarian Reform CasesJennifer Marie Columna BorbonNo ratings yet
- Uscg Inspection ProceduresDocument148 pagesUscg Inspection Proceduresluckystrike9008100% (2)
- Rental Request and Agreement (ENG)Document2 pagesRental Request and Agreement (ENG)seyfiNo ratings yet
- 2019-01 Nieuwsbrief Uzk ENUDocument2 pages2019-01 Nieuwsbrief Uzk ENUAdrian OanceaNo ratings yet
- Sociology AssignmentDocument12 pagesSociology AssignmentInjila ZaidiNo ratings yet
- Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 770Document3 pagesSupreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 770Kristine CorpuzNo ratings yet
- Anil Khanna'S Academy of Law Test 12: Marking SchemeDocument11 pagesAnil Khanna'S Academy of Law Test 12: Marking SchemePKParasKukkarNo ratings yet
- BPOC Resolution 06 Stray AnimalsDocument1 pageBPOC Resolution 06 Stray AnimalsJolland Palomares Sumalinog100% (1)
- Competition Law Assignment by Ritika ShriwastavDocument18 pagesCompetition Law Assignment by Ritika ShriwastavSaurabh KumarNo ratings yet
- DamagesDocument6 pagesDamagesAbel FrancisNo ratings yet
- Global Business Management Chapter 2 - Kelompok 1 - MM Kelas E2ADocument26 pagesGlobal Business Management Chapter 2 - Kelompok 1 - MM Kelas E2AVita RetiNo ratings yet
- Muslim Law ProjectDocument12 pagesMuslim Law ProjectMeetali Rawat100% (1)
- Air Force SirsaDocument1 pageAir Force Sirsapiechuckers.shaanNo ratings yet
- Examine The Pardoning Power of The Governor of India and Discuss A Famous Case Law That Exemplifies The Exercise of This PowerDocument2 pagesExamine The Pardoning Power of The Governor of India and Discuss A Famous Case Law That Exemplifies The Exercise of This PowerJulie SinghNo ratings yet
- California Patriot Coalition v. Alex PadillaDocument9 pagesCalifornia Patriot Coalition v. Alex PadillaDaily Caller News FoundationNo ratings yet
- Answer Pract Court 2.2 1Document8 pagesAnswer Pract Court 2.2 1GeeAgayamPastorNo ratings yet
- Amen - Compiled NotesDocument51 pagesAmen - Compiled NotesMichelle SulitNo ratings yet
- Treasury Official Receipt 30123000298 03012023 TRON2000 5047390Document1 pageTreasury Official Receipt 30123000298 03012023 TRON2000 5047390rmndzrmeNo ratings yet
- US Vs PINEDADocument2 pagesUS Vs PINEDAKeyan MotolNo ratings yet
- Jaipur National University: Seedling School of Law and GovernanceDocument24 pagesJaipur National University: Seedling School of Law and GovernancePrinkita KhodeNo ratings yet
- Nature of Employment and ContractDocument21 pagesNature of Employment and ContractSamantha BaricauaNo ratings yet
- Calgary Teen Ordered To Have Blood TransfusionsDocument3 pagesCalgary Teen Ordered To Have Blood Transfusionsyana7300 yana7300No ratings yet
- Imams ConstitutionDocument12 pagesImams ConstitutionKalam WealthNo ratings yet
- Intro To Law Activity DigestsDocument14 pagesIntro To Law Activity DigestsBryan VillarosaNo ratings yet