Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. VICENTE A. PACQUING

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-09-2179 2012-09-24	PROSEC. JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN VELASCO JR., J.
The OCA correctly found that these administrative cases cannot be resorted to as substitutes for the remedies not availed of in the contempt proceedings. The complaints, in the main, challenge several Orders issued by Judge Belen in the respective contempt proceedings, and the four contempt Decisions issued on December 18, 2006 and June 7, 2007. But as correctly observed by the OCA, issuances in the exercise of judicial prerogatives may only be questioned through judicial remedies under the Rules of Court and not by way of an administrative inquiry, absent fraud, ill intentions, or corrupt motive.[24] The institution of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for correcting the action of a judge alleged to have gone beyond the norms of propriety, where a sufficient judicial remedy exists.[25]
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that there can be no execution until and unless the judgment has become final and executory, i.e. the period of appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken, or, having been taken, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin, in which event, execution shall issue as a matter of right.[13] In short, once a judgment becomes final, the winning party is entitled to a writ of execution and the issuance thereof becomes a court's ministerial duty.[14]
	GR No. 158271 2008-04-08	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On April 12, 1999, alleging that ACDC failed to comply with its obligations under the Omnibus Credit Line, China Bank filed a Complaint[4] for recovery of sum of money and damages with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 138, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-796. In the Complaint, China Bank claimed that ACDC, after collecting and receiving the proceeds or receivables from the various construction contracts and purportedly holding them in trust for China Bank under several Deeds of Assignment, misappropriated, converted, and used the funds for its own purpose and benefit, instead of remitting or delivering them to China Bank.[5]