PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If conflict exists between the basic law and a rule or regulation (implementing rules and regulations, also called "IRR") issued to implement it, the basic law prevails. Said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. Except for constitutional officials who can trace their competence to act on the fundamental law itself, a public official must locate in the statute relied upon, a grant of power before he can exercise it. Department zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. (Tayug Rural Bank v. CB. G.R. No. 46158. Nov. 28, 1986) Administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law (Valerio v. Hon. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 7 SCRA 719; Commissioner of Civil Service v. Cruz, 15 SCRA 638; R.B. Industrial Development Company, Ltd. v. Enage, 24 SCRA 365; Director of Forestry v. Munoz, 23 SCRA 1183; Gonzalo Sy v. Central B

EN BANC [A.C. No. 3405, March 18, 2014, 730 Phil. 1 ] JULIETA B. NARAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, RESPONDENT. RESOLUTION PER CURIAM: Before this Court is a “Petition for Readmission” to the practice of law filed by Dominador M. Narag (Respondent). On November 13, 1989, Julieta B. Narag (Julieta) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, herein respondent, whom she accused of having violated Rule 1.01 [1]  in relation to Canons 1 [2]  and 6 [3]  of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She claimed that the respondent, who was then a college instructor in St. Louis College of Tuguegarao and a member of the  Sangguniang Panlalawigan  of Cagayan, maintained an amorous relationship with a certain Gina Espita (Gina) – a 17-year old first year college student . Julieta further claimed that the respondent had already abandoned her and their children to live with Gina. The respondent denied the charge against him, claiming that t