Posts

Heirs of Roxas v. IAC (G.R. No. 67195, May 29, 1989)

 Facts: Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas (HEVR) seeks to nullify MJBFS' license to operate the restaurant in the Hidden Valley Springs Resort and to prohibit the DOT from issuing any other license to respondent Guillermo Roxas. The function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of some act that is about to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished.  Public respondents argued that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by them because under the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Business and Operation of all Restaurants in the Philippines", MJBFS was not required to submit a contract of lease or written permit from the petitioner, the restaurant owner, allowing the former to operate the latter's restaurant. Moreover, they contend that the issuance of the license in favor of MJBFS was predicated on the favorable recommendation of a DOT Team of Inspectors that evaluated MJBFS’ application and inspected the premises of the s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation v. Florentino (G.R. No. 134222, September 10, 1999)

Petitioner: DON TINO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Respondent: JULIAN FLORENTINO Topic: Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; Section 3(b) and Section 5 Doctrine:  In the case of Gachon vs. Devera, Jr., we ruled that the use of the word “shall” in the Rule on Summary Procedure underscores their mandatory character. “Giving the provisions a directory application would subvert the nature of the Rule on Summary Procedure and defeat its objective of expediting the adjudication of suits. Indeed, to admit a late answer, xxx, is to put a premium on dilatory maneuvers-the very mischief that the Rule seeks to redress.” Recit-ready: The petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which ordered the admission of a late and defective answer in the ejectment case. The petitioners alleged that the answer of the respondent on the summon was not verified. Hence, it is defective and filed out on time. The respondent, however, argued that his answer was filed late and by a no...
Post a Comment
Read more

Farrales v. Camarista (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1184, March 02, 2000)

Petitioners:  AMPARO S. FARRALES AND ATTY. RAUL S. SISON Respondent:  JUDGE RUBY B. CAMARISTA Topic: Revised Rule on Summary Proceedings (Section 10 and 8); Erroneous Application of P.D. 1508 Doctrine:  It is thus very clear that the period for a rendition of judgment in cases falling under the summary procedure is thirty days. This is in keeping with the spirit of the rule which aims to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases falling thereunder. Recit-ready: There were two civil cases which were remained unsolved because the respondent Judge referred them to the barangay for conciliation instead of actually deciding on the case. The complainants contend that the respondent Judge lacks knowledge on the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and questioned the acts of the judge on referring the case to the barangay level when the parties live in barangays of different cities or municipalities. The respondent Judge averred that she referred the cases t...
Post a Comment
Read more

1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (Civil Cases -- Notes)

 I. Applicability Scope -- governs summary procedure in MeTC, MTC in Cities, MTC, MCTS in the following cases: cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered attorney's fees awarded -- not exceeding Php 20,000.00 other civil cases except: probate proceedings where total amount of plaintiff's claim does not exceed Php 10,000.00, EXCLUSIVE of interest and costs Determination of Applicability (Section 2) the court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by this rule -- upon filing of a civil or criminal action patently erroneous determination to AVOID the application of this ground ground for disciplinary action Pleadings (Section 3) The only allowed pleadings allowed to be filed: complaints compulsory counterclaims cross-claims pleaded in the answer answers all pleadings shall be verified Duty of Court (Section 4) -- court must first determine that the case falls under s...
Read more