Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTORINO C. FRANCISCO v. WINAI PERMSKUL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 157549 2011-05-30	DONNINA C. HALLEY v. PRINTWELL BERSAMIN, J.
On the first error, the petitioner contends that the RTC lifted verbatim from the memorandum of Printwell; and submits that the RTC thereby violated the requirement imposed in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution[20] as well as in Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court,[21] to the effect that a judgment or final order of a court should state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The petitioner claims that the RTC's violation indicated that the RTC did not analyze the case before rendering its decision, thus denying her the opportunity to analyze the decision; and that a suspicion of partiality arose from the fact that the RTC decision was but a replica of Printwell's memorandum.She cites Francisco v. Permskul,[22] in which the Court has stated that the reason underlying the constitutional requirement, that every decision should clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based, is to inform the reader of how the court has reached its decision and thereby give the losing party an opportunity to study and analyze the decision and enable such party to appropriately assign the errors committed therein on appeal.
	AM No. RTJ-07-2075 2008-04-18	ATTY. UBALDINO A. LACUROM v. JUDGE JUANITA C. TIENZO NACHURA, J.
As regards the diminutive decision in Civil Case No. 4884, respondent judge again questions complainant's locus standi to institute the complaint. She emphasizes that Atty. Buenaventura did not, in fact, appeal the decision to the appellate court. At any rate, respondent judge submits that her decision is in accord with the ruling in Francisco v. Permskul[8] wherein this Court sustained the validity of memorandum decisions.
	GR No. 166051 2008-04-08	SOLID HOMES v. EVELINA LASERNA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
"We have, therefore, carefully reviewed the evidence and made a re-assessment of the same, and We are persuaded, nay compelled, to affirm the correctness of the trial court's factual findings and the soundness of its conclusion. For judicial convenience and expediency, therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of reference, the findings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as integral part of this Our decision." (Underscoring supplied) In Francisco v. Permskul,[29] this Court similarly held that the following memorandum decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City did not transgress the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the 1997 Philippine Constitution: "MEMORANDUM DECISION
	AM No. RTJ-07-2075 2007-10-09	ATTY. UBALDINO A. LACUROM v. JUDGE JUANITA C. TIENZO NACHURA, J.
As regards the diminutive decision in Civil Case No. 4884, respondent judge again questions complainant's locus standi to institute the complaint. She emphasizes that Atty. Buenaventura did not, in fact, appeal the decision to the appellate court. At any rate, respondent judge submits that her decision is in accord with the ruling in Francisco v. Permskul[8] wherein this Court sustained the validity of memorandum decisions.
	GR Nos. 137707-11 2004-12-17	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
First, petitioner's theory that the Sandiganbayan "totally disregarded" the prosecution's evidence in granting the demurrer has no basis. Petitioner points out that the assailed Decision did not cite any transcript of stenographic notes or any of the prosecution's documentary evidence. A decision need not be a complete recital of the evidence presented. It is sufficient if it states the facts as found by the court. To test the adequacy of the challenged Decision, the proper yardstick is Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution which states in part that "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." The purpose of this provision is to inform the parties of how the court reached its conclusion after considering the pertinent facts and the applicable laws.[17] The losing party is entitled to know why he lost and following analysis of the decision, he may elevate what he considers its errors to a higher tribunal for review. The fact that the Sandiganbayan did not cite any transcript of stenographic notes or documentary proof does not mean that it "totally disregarded" the prosecution's evidence. In its ratiocination, the court discussed the issues as borne by the evidence and cited the laws applicable. Simply stated, its conclusion is based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the laws applicable.