Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTER SANTIAGO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191988 2010-08-31	ATTY. EVILLO C. PORMENTO v. JOSEPH 'ERAP' EJERCITO ESTRADA CORONA, J.
An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events.[12]
	GR No. 132540 2009-04-16	ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties.[25]
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The parties met in Kuala Lumpur on March 24, 2001, with the talks being facilitated by the Malaysian government, the parties signing on the same date the Agreement on the General Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks Between the GRP and the MILF. The MILF thereafter suspended all its military actions.[5]
	GR No. 131377 2003-02-11	PEOPLE v. NAZAR U. CHAVES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN LIMITING THE EVIDENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IN ITS MOTION TO DISCHARGE TO THE RESPECTIVE SWORN STATEMENT EXECUTED BY ITS PROPOSED WITNESSES AND IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF THE PRESENTATION OF OTHER EVIDENCE.[9] The Court of Appeals, in passing upon the issue of whether or not the prosecution may present the testimony of Felizardo Roxas as a hostile witness, held that the trial court's Order of June 3, 1993 disallowing the said presentation had already become final due to the prosecution's failure to appeal the same. This is error. Clearly, the Order dated June 3, 1993 was interlocutory; it did not finally dispose of the case on its merits. As such, the Order cannot be the proper subject of appeal. It may, however, be assailed in a special civil action for certiorari. Under the Rules of Court then governing, the petition for certiorari may be filed within a reasonable period.[10]
	GR No. 131106 2001-12-07	EUGENE YU v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, respondent received the order denying its motion for reconsideration on February 8, 1996, and the petition for certiorari assailing said order was filed with the Court of Appeals only on October 14, 1996, or more than eight (8) months later. Certainly, a period of more than eight (8) months is more than the period considered reasonable for filing such petition.[15] The irresistible conclusion is that the petition was not filed on time.
	GR No. 131106 2001-12-07	EUGENE YU v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, this Court noted that almost eight (8) months had elapsed before petitioners decided to question the order denying the motion to dismiss. Neither petitioners adduced reasons for the belated recourse to the appellate court. We affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that petitioners were guilty of laches.[17]