This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) assails the December 22, 2003 Decision[1] and February 7, 2005 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 62449, which nullified the decision and orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, and its predecessor, Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch 10, in Land Registration Case (LRC) Case No. 95-0004 (formerly LRC Case No. N-9293), captioned In Re: Application for Registration of Land Title, Rosalina V. Francisco, et al., Applicants, to wit: Decision dated September 15, 1977, declaring Rosalina V. Francisco, Carmen V. Francisco, Carmela V. Francisco and herein petitioner Rodolfo V. Francisco as the true and absolute owners of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Plan Psu-04-001463;[3] | |||||
|
2007-02-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| While the doctrine of privileged communication can be abused, and its abuse can lead to great hardships, to allow libel suits to prosper strictly on this account will give rise to even greater hardships. The doctrine itself rests on public policy which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice.[20] It is as a rule applied liberally.[21] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of privileged communication that utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged has been enunciated in a long line of cases.[8] Said doctrine rests upon public policy which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental result, it may in some instances afford an immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer.[9] The privilege is not intended so much for the protection of those engaged in the public service and in the enactment and administration of law, as for the promotion of the public welfare, the purpose being that members of the legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers and witnesses may speak their minds freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages.[10] Lawyers, most especially, should be allowed a great latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold,[11] and for the felicity of their clients, they may be pardoned some infelicities of phrase.[12] However, such remarks or comments should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety.[13] | |||||