Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARGARITO R. JAMERO v. ACHILLES L. MELICOR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
The retroactive application of the fresh-period rule, a procedural law that aims "to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution,"[99] is impervious to any serious challenge. This is because there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.[100] A law or regulation is procedural when it prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice.[101] It does not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or is not subject of the general rule prohibiting the retroactive operation of statues, but is given retroactive effect in actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage without violating any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected.
	GR NO. 149508 2007-10-10	SPS. RICARDO AND LEONILA DE LOS SANTOS v. MA. SOCORRO V. VDA. DE MANGUBAT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Procedural law refers to the adjective law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice.[39] Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statues - they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.[40]
	GR No. 137147 AND GR No. 137148 2003-11-18	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We agree with respondent that there was no basis for reducing the award of actual damages from P1,300,000.00 to P98,975.00. On the contrary, the records substantiate the amount of actual damages awarded by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The trial court, in its decision, extensively quoted and lent credence to respondent's testimony as to the damages he suffered.[12] Likewise, the Court of Appeals evaluated anew the said evidence when it resolved the appeal and affirmed the judgment. Indeed, it is settled that when the factual findings of the trial court are confirmed by the Court of Appeals, said facts are final and conclusive on this Court, unless the same are not supported by the evidence on record.[13]
	GR No. 137147 2002-01-29	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA PARDO, J.
"SO ORDERED."[4] On July 30, 1998, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted decision.[5]
	GR No. 137147 2002-01-29	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA PARDO, J.
On January 13, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners's motion for reconsideration, ruling that the grounds relied upon are merely rehash of the arguments in its brief, and the same had been fully passed upon in the decision sought to be reconsidered.[6]