digests ph

 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...

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...

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...