Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MANUEL A. AGUILAR AND YOLANDA C. AGUILAR v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 7474 2014-09-09	PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID v. ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA BERSAMIN, J.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his clients' propensities to litigate,[20] so must he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits. While it is the Court's duty to investigate and uncover the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers, it is equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are intended to vex and harass them, among other things.[21]
	GR No. 159709 2012-06-27	HEIRS OF SERVANDO FRANCO v. SPS. VERONICA AND DANILO GONZALES BERSAMIN, J.
The receipt dated February 5, 1992 was only the proof of Servando's payment of his obligation as confirmed by the decision of the RTC. It did not establish the novation of his agreement with the respondents. Indeed, the Court has ruled that an obligation to pay a sum of money is not novated by an instrument that expressly recognizes the old, or changes only the terms of payment, or adds other obligations not incompatible with the old ones, or the new contract merely supplements the old one.[24] A new contract that is a mere reiteration, acknowledgment or ratification of the old contract with slight modifications or alterations as to the cause or object or principal conditions can stand together with the former one, and there can be no incompatibility between them.[25] Moreover, a creditor's acceptance of payment after demand does not operate as a modification of the original contract.[26]
	GR No. 192217 2011-03-02	DANILO L. PAREL v. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO VELASCO JR., J.
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality.[17] Once a judgment becomes final and executory, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. All that remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right.[18]
	GR No. 173342 2010-10-13	ZAMBOANGA FOREST MANAGERS CORP. v. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER PEREZ, J.
Granted by the CA an extension of fifteen (15) days from 25 October, 2003 or until 9 November, 2003 within which to file its petition for review,[29] it does not likewise help ZFMC's cause any that it was only able to do so on 24 November 2003.[30] Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process,[31] it has been held, time and again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege.[32] Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory.[33] Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not[34] and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same.[35] The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[36]
	GR NO. 156164 2009-09-04	SPS. LEONARDO AND MILAGROS CHUA v. JACINTO G. ANG BRION, J.
A prior motion for reconsideration is unnecessary: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is an extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the grant of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; or (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[11]
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The most important phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment.[31] Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party should not, through some clever maneuvers devised by an unsporting loser, be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[32] An unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing of justiciable controversies with finality.[33] Furthermore, a judgment if not executed would just be an empty victory for the prevailing party because execution is the fruit and end of the suit and very aptly called the life of the law.[34]
	GR No. 169013 2008-12-16	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. GODOFREDO G. CUANAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Furthermore, while a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari, immediate recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is warranted where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; where the proceeding was ex parte or one in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object.[35] These exceptions find application to Cuanan's petition for certiorari in the CA.
	GR No. 171469 2008-08-11	V.C. PONCE COMPANY v. RODOLFO REYES CORONA, J.
We remind petitioner's counsel, Atty. Candice Marie T. Bandong, that she is an officer of the court who must see to it that the orderly administration of justice must never be unduly impeded, not even by her client. Her oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to her duty to her client; its primacy is indisputable.[14] In this light, we are sternly warning her (or any other counsel who might take over this case) of disciplinary action for any further delay in the execution of the decision of the Pasay City RTC.
	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court stresses once again that it is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice.[61]