Lawyerly

GR No. 200454

2014-10-22

HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ

BERSAMIN, J.

The verification of a petition is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations contained in the petition have been made in good faith, are true and correct and not merely speculative.[38] This requirement affects the form of the pleading, and its non-compliance will not render the pleading defective. It is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite.[39] The courts may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking, and may even act on an unverified pleading if doing so will serve the ends of justice.[40]

GR No. 153852

2012-10-24

SPS. HUMBERTO P. DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS v. METROPOLITAN BANK

BERSAMIN, J.

We remind that the writ of certiorari being a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character, whose purpose is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent an inferior court from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts have no power or authority in law to perform) is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop,[19] and cannot be issued to correct every error committed by a lower court.

GR No. 179441

2010-08-09

ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAÑAQUE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

VELASCO JR., J.

Basically, petitioners fault the appellate court for citing and relying on Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers' Association v. Court of Appeals (Toyota)[31] and Estares v. Court of Appeals[32] in support of its disposition on their non-entitlement to a preliminary injunctive writ. Pursuing this point, petitioners posit the inapplicability of Toyota, as that case involved the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, not a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, as here. And Estares, they argue, was cast against and revolved around a different factual issue, for the debtors Estares spouses in Estares, unlike petitioners, did not question the statement of account given them by the lending institution and failed to establish their entitlement to the injunctive writ.

GR NO. 137884

2008-03-28

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

workshop.[51] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction.[52] It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one in which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which was tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction;[53] it is not to be used for any other purpose,[54] such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact.[55] The only issue involved in the RTC was whether the writ of execution issued by the MeTC was issued in excess of jurisdiction.

GR Nos. 139594-95

2008-02-26

BORROMEO BROS. ESTATE v. EDGAR JOHN A. GARCIA

PUNO, CJ.

The cadastral court did not deny petitioner of its right to due process of the law. The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[18] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[19]

GR NO. 146214

2007-10-05

RODOLFO M. CUENCA v. ALBERTO P. ATAS

VELASCO, JR., J.

Procedural due process, in gist, is the necessity for notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Its essence is encapsulated in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades: "Strike but hear me first."[45] Thus, as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his/her interests in due course, the party would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[46]

GR NO. 168943

2006-10-27

IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. The purpose of verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition (or complaint) have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement.[21]

GR NO. 153468

2006-08-17

PAUL LEE TAN v. PAUL SYCIP

PANGANIBAN, CJ.

In the interest of substantial justice, this initial procedural lapse may be excused. [19] There appears to be no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification and certification, which are aimed at assuring the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the Petition for Review and at discouraging forum shopping.[20] More important, the substantial merits of petitioners' case and the purely legal question involved in the Petition should be considered special circumstances[21] or compelling reasons that justify an exception to the strict requirements of the verification and the certification of non-forum shopping.[22]

GR NO. 168498

2006-06-16

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is basic that as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[19] In Batongbakal v. Zafra,[20] the Court held that: There is no question that the "essence of due process is a hearing before conviction and before an impartial and disinterested tribunal" but due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. (Emphasis supplied) As correctly pointed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the CTA Second Division set the case for hearing on April 2, 2004 after the filing by the petitioner of its petition for relief from judgment. Petitioner's counsel was present on the scheduled hearing and in fact orally argued its petition.

GR NO. 141962

2006-01-25

DANILO DUMO v. ERLINDA ESPINAS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In any case, petitioners' contention that they have been deprived of due process is denied by the fact that they were able to appeal the questioned RTC Decision to the CA via a petition for review and, subsequently, file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision. The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense.[26] What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[27] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[28]

	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
The verification of a petition is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations contained in the petition have been made in good faith, are true and correct and not merely speculative.[38] This requirement affects the form of the pleading, and its non-compliance will not render the pleading defective. It is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite.[39] The courts may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking, and may even act on an unverified pleading if doing so will serve the ends of justice.[40]
	GR No. 153852 2012-10-24	SPS. HUMBERTO P. DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS v. METROPOLITAN BANK BERSAMIN, J.
We remind that the writ of certiorari being a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character, whose purpose is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent an inferior court from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts have no power or authority in law to perform) is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop,[19] and cannot be issued to correct every error committed by a lower court.
	GR No. 179441 2010-08-09	ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAÑAQUE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VELASCO JR., J.
Basically, petitioners fault the appellate court for citing and relying on Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers' Association v. Court of Appeals (Toyota)[31] and Estares v. Court of Appeals[32] in support of its disposition on their non-entitlement to a preliminary injunctive writ. Pursuing this point, petitioners posit the inapplicability of Toyota, as that case involved the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, not a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, as here. And Estares, they argue, was cast against and revolved around a different factual issue, for the debtors Estares spouses in Estares, unlike petitioners, did not question the statement of account given them by the lending institution and failed to establish their entitlement to the injunctive writ.
	GR NO. 137884 2008-03-28	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
workshop.[51] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction.[52] It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one in which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which was tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction;[53] it is not to be used for any other purpose,[54] such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact.[55] The only issue involved in the RTC was whether the writ of execution issued by the MeTC was issued in excess of jurisdiction.
	GR Nos. 139594-95 2008-02-26	BORROMEO BROS. ESTATE v. EDGAR JOHN A. GARCIA PUNO, CJ.
The cadastral court did not deny petitioner of its right to due process of the law. The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[18] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[19]
	GR NO. 146214 2007-10-05	RODOLFO M. CUENCA v. ALBERTO P. ATAS VELASCO, JR., J.
Procedural due process, in gist, is the necessity for notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Its essence is encapsulated in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades: "Strike but hear me first."[45] Thus, as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his/her interests in due course, the party would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[46]
	GR NO. 168943 2006-10-27	IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. The purpose of verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition (or complaint) have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement.[21]
	GR NO. 153468 2006-08-17	PAUL LEE TAN v. PAUL SYCIP PANGANIBAN, CJ.
In the interest of substantial justice, this initial procedural lapse may be excused. [19] There appears to be no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification and certification, which are aimed at assuring the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the Petition for Review and at discouraging forum shopping.[20] More important, the substantial merits of petitioners' case and the purely legal question involved in the Petition should be considered special circumstances[21] or compelling reasons that justify an exception to the strict requirements of the verification and the certification of non-forum shopping.[22]
	GR NO. 168498 2006-06-16	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is basic that as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[19] In Batongbakal v. Zafra,[20] the Court held that: There is no question that the "essence of due process is a hearing before conviction and before an impartial and disinterested tribunal" but due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. (Emphasis supplied) As correctly pointed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the CTA Second Division set the case for hearing on April 2, 2004 after the filing by the petitioner of its petition for relief from judgment. Petitioner's counsel was present on the scheduled hearing and in fact orally argued its petition.
	GR NO. 141962 2006-01-25	DANILO DUMO v. ERLINDA ESPINAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any case, petitioners' contention that they have been deprived of due process is denied by the fact that they were able to appeal the questioned RTC Decision to the CA via a petition for review and, subsequently, file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision. The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense.[26] What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[27] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[28]

SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA