Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 201483 2014-08-04	CONRADO A. LIM v. HMR PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 30, 2012[1] Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. SP No. 112708, a case involving the computation of the backwages of an illegally dismissed employee.
	GR No. 179909 2010-01-25	FAR EAST BANK v. SPS. ERNESTO AND LEONOR C. CAYETANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Notwithstanding the nullity of the real estate mortgage executed by Tabing and her husband, we find that the equity principle of laches is applicable in the instant case. Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[22] Its essential elements are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (2) delay in asserting complainant's right after he had knowledge of the defendant's conduct and after he has an opportunity to sue; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant.[23]
	GR No. 172775 2007-12-19	NE CHAN v. A MOTOR CO. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.[18]
	GR NO. 164948 2006-06-27	DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the Court to rest its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. Mere identification of documents and the markings thereof as exhibits do not confer any evidentiary weight on documents unless formally offered.[44]
	GR NO. 161295 2005-06-29	JESSIE G. CHING v. WILLIAM M. SALINAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The RTC is mandated under the Constitution and Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine probable cause. The court cannot abdicate its constitutional obligation by refusing to determine whether an offense has been committed.[20] The absence of probable cause will cause the outright nullification of the search warrant.[21]
	GR NOS. 151809-12 2005-04-12	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO, J.
It appears that Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the Sandiganbayan's Second Division to the Fifth Division.[15] In its resolution dated July 11, 2001, the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan denied the other PCGG's motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza.[16] It adopted the resolution of its Second Division dated April 22, 1991, and observed that the arguments were the same in substance as the motion to disqualify filed in Civil Case No. 0005. The PCGG sought reconsideration of the ruling but its motion was denied in its resolution dated December 5, 2001.[17]
	GR NOS. 151809-12 2005-04-12	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN PUNO, J.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a new form of ethical standards began to guide lawyers in their practice - the bar association code of legal ethics. The bar codes were detailed ethical standards formulated by lawyers for lawyers. They combined the two primary sources of ethical guidance from the nineteenth century. Like the academic discourses, the bar association codes gave detail to the statutory statements of duty and the oaths of office. Unlike the academic lectures, however, the bar association codes retained some of the official imprimatur of the statutes and oaths. Over time, the bar association codes became extremely popular that states adopted them as binding rules of law. Critical to the development of the new codes was the re-emergence of bar associations themselves. Local bar associations formed sporadically during the colonial period, but they disbanded by the early nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, bar associations began to form again, picking up where their colonial predecessors had left off. Many of the new bar associations, most notably the Alabama State Bar Association and the American Bar Association, assumed on the task of drafting substantive standards of conduct for their members.[22]
	GR No. 140311 2001-03-30	DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
We find no merit in this argument. "Laches" is defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that a party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[18] As the Solicitor General correctly pointed out, the principle of laches is inapplicable in this case. The provision in Sec. 14, Rule 110, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is explicit that amendments as to form may still be made after arraignment or during trial. Since the questioned amendment was made "during trial," the same was made seasonably notwithstanding the lapse of four (4) years.