This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Although the ShCC stated that, in deciding on the custody case, it scrutinized the evidence on hand, it was remiss in its duty to state the precise factual and legal basis on which its ruling awarding custody to Maliga was based. Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that decisions must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which they are based. The decisions of courts must be able to address the issues raised by the parties through the presentation of a comprehensive analysis or account of factual and legal findings of the court.[55] It is evident that the ShCC failed to comply with these requirements. It merely stated that it was in Princess Fatima's "best interest in all aspects of life, economically, socially and religiously" that custody be awarded to her father. There was no express finding that Mendez was unfit in any way, or a hint of an explanation as to why Maliga was in a better position to take custody of Princess Fatima. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petitioners also raise in their Supplemental Petition[27] some defenses which were not introduced during the proceedings before the lower courts. These pertain to the alleged failure of Spouses Saraza to fully understand the contents of the Agreement as these were written in English, and their claim that the Agreement was a contract of adhesion for having been prepared solely by the respondent. Basic is the rule, however, that no issue may be raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the lower tribunals for consideration.[28] To consider such issues and arguments that are belatedly raised by a party would be tantamount to a blatant disregard of the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[29] In any case, the new defenses that are raised by the petitioners deserve scant consideration. There is no claim that the cited language limitation equally applied to the respondent, the principal party in the Agreement. Contrary to the petitioners' stance, the Agreement also does not appear to be a contract where the petitioners had no opportunity to question its terms, negotiate or decline its execution. The bare allegations of the petitioners fail to suffice. | |||||
|
2012-08-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have ruled that dismissal of a criminal action does not foreclose institution of an administrative proceeding against the same respondent, nor carry with it the relief from administrative liability.[30] It is a basic rule in administrative law that public officials are under a three-fold responsibility for a violation of their duty or for a wrongful act or omission, such that they may be held civilly, criminally and administratively liable for the same act. Administrative liability is thus separate and distinct from penal and civil liability.[31] | |||||