Thread by @AttyNTemporeDei

Q: May the court deny the prosecution's motion for arraignment beyond sixty (60) days from the time of the filing by the Accused of his Petition for Review with the DOJ?
Answer:
No. In the absence of any TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction from a higher tribunal, the court can

only suspend the proceedings against the Accused for sixty (60) days from the filing of the Accused's Petition for Review with the DOJ.
The court's failure to proceed with the arraignment of the Accused without any TRO or Injunction is erroneous as "it disregards the requirements

of due process and erodes the court's independence and integrity." (ABS-CBN Corporation vs.
Felipe Gozon, et al., G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015).

#HernanDoIt

Q: What is the significance of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo?
Answer:
The issuance of the Writ of Amparo sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for the petitioner.

Q:When is the judgment in the petition for writ of amparo considered satisfied?

Answer:
After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be satisfied. In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner's life, liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated

by the court that renders the judgment. (De Lima vs.
Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226, G.R. 204528 February 19, 2013)

#HernanDoIt

Q: What is the governing law on changes pf first name?

Answer:
The governing law on changes of first name is Republic Act (RA)
No. 10172 which amended Republic Act No. 9048. R.A. 9048 effectively removed clerical errors and changes of the name outside the ambit of Rule 108

and put them under the jurisdiction of the civil registrar (Republic vs. Gallo, 851 SCRA 570, G.R. No. 207074 January 17, 2018).

Thus, a person may now change his or her first name or correct errors in his or her name

through administrative proceedings (Republic vs. Gallo, 851 SCRA 570, G.r. No. 207074 January 17, 2018).

In addition to the change of the first name, the day and month of birth, and the sex of a person may now be changed without judicial proceedings.

#HernanDoIt

Q: When may the court take cognizance of a Petition to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname in a Birth Certificate of a person?

Answer:
The Civil Registrar has primary jurisdiction over a Petition to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error

and Change of First Name or Nickname, not the Regional Trial Court. Only if the Petition is denjed by the local city or municipal civil registrar can the Regional Trial Court take cognizance of the case. (Republic vs. Gallo,
851 SCRA 570, G.R. No. 207074 January 17, 2018).

Q: May errors in entries as to biological sex be administratively corrected?

Answer:
Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10172, errors in entries as to biological sex may be administratively corrected,

provided that they involve a typographical or clerical error.
(Republic vs. Gallo, 851 SCRA 570, G.R. No. 207074 January 17, 2018).

#HernanDoIt

NOTABLE CASES IN REM

Eversley Childs Sanitarium, et al., vs Spouses Anastacio Perlabarbarona
G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018

There is forum shopping when a party files different pleadings in different tribunals, despite having the same "identities] of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought."

The mere filing of a motion to withdraw does not have the effect of withdrawing the Motion for Reconsideration.

Ramirez vs. Elomina
G.R. No. 20266 I. March 17, 2021 The CA is correct in denying the motion for reconsideration being filed out of time or after the lapse of 17 days after receipt of the decision. Hence, the decision of the CA had already become final and executory

Possible Q both for Rem and Poli
Radaza vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Villa-Gomez vs. People. It was therein held that a handling prosecutor's lack of prior written authority from the head prosecutor

in the filing of an Information does not affect a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. Such handling prosecutor who filed an unauthorized Informat but without bad faith or criminal intent is considered a de facto officer

coated with a color of authority to acts that remain valid and official

PNB-Republic Bank (Maybank) vs. Sian-Limsiaco
G.R. No. 196323, February 8, 2021

The suit was instituted in a representative capacity. It must be note that the respondent was given an SPA by the owners of the property allowing the respondent to mortgage their properties to secure

the loans obtained by the respondent. Implied in the authority to mortgage is the authority to cancel the mortgage because it is an act that would ber-fit the principal which is allowed under Article 1882 of the Civil Code.

Pineda vs. Miranda
G.R. No. 204997, August 4, 2021

In this case the Court explained the nature of revival of judgment.

The revival action is a new action altogether; it is different and distinct from the original judgment sought to be revived or enforced. It is a new and

independent action, wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. The Court agrees with the CA in citing Saligumba v. Palanog, especially when it ruled that revival of judgment is

premised on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by inde, endent action, is already final and executory.

Possible Q for Credit Trans

PNB vs. Fontanoza
G.R. No. 213673, March 2, 2022

When the real estate mortgaged has been foreclosed and the mortgaged property has been sold to public auction, the winning bidder has the right to claim possession over the foreclosed property thru

petition for writ of possession which, by its nature, is ex-parte.

There are, however, exceptions to the ex-parte nature of the petition: (a) gross inadequacy of the purchase price; (b) third party claiming right adverse to the mortgagor/debtor,

(c) failure to pay the surplus proceeds of the sale to mortgagor.

Possible Q

PNB vs. Daradar
G.R. No. 180203, June 28, 2021

Here, respondent did not move for the reconsideration of the Second Order nor appeal the same, thus allowing it to become final and executory. On this score, the Second Order is already beyond the power of the courts to

amend or revoke.

In any event, the question of whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute is mainly addressed the sound discretion of the trial court. The true test f the exercise of such power is whether, under the pre ing circumstances,

the plaintiff is culpable for want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.

Appeal to SC via Rule 45
1. Court of Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
3. Court of Tax Appeals En banc

People vs. Sandiganbayan, Casurra, et.al.,
G.R. No. 239878, October 28, 2022

On motion to quash filed by the respondents on the ground of inordinate delay, SB dismissed the case against them. The Government, thru the OSG, filed a Petition for Certiorari before

the Supreme Court. Is there inordinate delay?

Yes, there is inordinate delay taking into the parameters in Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan.

First, it took more than six (6) years for the OBM to terminate the preliminary investigation.

Second, the prosecution was not able to justify

the delay which in this case is its burden as the period to resolve the case has already expired.

Third, the respondents suffered damages already.

Lastly, the right to speedy disposition of cases was timely invoked by the respondents, as required by the case of Cagang.

Palafox vs. Hon. Judge Mendiola
G.R. No. 20955 I, February 15, 2021
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and

important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as, (I) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional

and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

Meralco vs. AAA Cryogenics
G.R. No.297429, November 18, 2020

The Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of questions of law because the Court is not a trier of facts. The rule however admits of exceptions: (1) When the findings are grounded entirely

on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when

the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.

Land Bank vs. Del Moral
G.R. No. 187307, October 14, 2020

For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (L) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

(3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

Side note

If a party filed petition under R65 to RTC challenging the MTaC decision/order, if denied, file for notice of appeal to the SC as said petition is within the original jurisdiction of the RTC.

Erratum

Issue of law SC
Issue of Fact CA

Harbour Center vs. La Filipina
G.R. Nos. 240984 & 24 | 120, September 27, 2021

The Court distinguished criminal contempt from civil contempt.
Civil contempt is committed when a party fails to comply with an order of a court or judge "for the benefit of the other party."

A criminal contempt is committed when a party acts against the court's authority and dignity or commits a forbidden act tending to disrespect the court or judge. In general, civil contempt proceedings should be instituted by an aggrieved party, or his successor, or someone who

has a pecuniary interest in the right to be protected. In criminal contempt proceedings, it is generally held that the State is the real prosecutor.

Gemina v. Heirs of Espejo
G.R. No. 232682, September 13, 2021

Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court

With the advent of AM 19-10-20-SC, said Section 5 has been clarified by already including the word counsel and putting the conjunctive word and, to the effect that it is

only when both the party-litigant (plaintiff or defendant) and his counsel fail to appear in pre-trial that there be the concomitant consequence of either a dismissal (plaintiff and counsel were absent), or presentation of evidence ex parte (defendant and counsel were absent).

Brual vs. Brual, et al.,
G.R. No. 20545 I, March 7, 2022

The rules are clear. While it is not necessary that a notice of appeal and a record on appeal be filed simultaneously, the rule is unequivocal that the notice of appeal and

record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order.

Ancheta vs. Cambay
G.R. No. 204272, January 18, 2021

May a party who availed of the remedy of petition for relief from judgment still file a petition for annulment of judgment?

Yes. Provided the ground is lack of jurisdiction.Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides for the

remedy of annulment of judgment with the appellate court of the judgments, final orders, and resolutions of the RTCs in civil actions for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault

of the petitioner.

Significantly, Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules limits the ground for the action of annulment of judgment to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.