Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 183641 2015-04-22	BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR PERALTA, J.
This move by private respondents is plain and simple forum shopping and deserves sanction from this Court.[38] Forum shopping is manifest whenever a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court. Forum shopping is an act of malpractice as the litigants trifle with the courts and abuse their processes.[39] It degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets. An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[40]
	GR No. 189434 2014-03-12	FERDINAND R. MARCOS v. REPUBLIC SERENO, C.J.
Petitioners further insist that "Civil Case No. 0141 does not involve the Arelma account because the respondent unequivocally reserved its right to file a separate forfeiture petition concerning it." However, petitioners failed to prove that such a reservation was made, and never even substantiated how such reservation could operate to deprive the State of its right to file for separate judgment. There is nothing in Republic Act 1379[3] or in the Rules which prohibits the graft court from taking cognizance of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment only because of statements allegedly made by one party. This Court cannot countenance the view advanced by petitioners defeating the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over violations of R.A. Nos. 3019 and 1379,[4] where the laws themselves do not provide for such limitations.
	GR No. 162372 2011-10-19	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We do not subscribe to petitioner's interpretation of this law. This is because, unless the intention to revoke is clear and manifest, the abrogation or repeal of a law cannot be assumed.[50] The repealing clause contained in Republic Act No. 8291 is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the statutes that are intended to be repealed. It is actually a clause, which predicated the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior laws.[51]
	GR No. 170122 2009-10-12	CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
(1) The corresponding summons were issued and all served on Gen. Garcia at his place of detention. Per the Sheriff's Return[4] dated November 2, 2005, the summons were duly served on respondent Garcias. Earlier, or on October 29, 2004, the SB issued a writ of attachment in favor of the Republic, an issuance which Gen. Garcia challenged before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165835.
	GR No. 179261 2008-04-18	OMBUDSMAN v. BEATRIZ S. PELIÑO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Thus, an incumbent public officer or employee's failure or omission to include in his SALN or DBIFC property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, may give cause to his prosecution under R.A. No. 1379, for harboring unexplained wealth. The proceedings thereunder are civil in nature, although forfeiture of the property involved is considered to be in the nature of a penalty.[30]
	GR NO. 167103 2006-08-31	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
On 27 October 2004, the petition for forfeiture[3] was filed by the Ombudsman against Garcia, et al. before the Sandiganbayan. On 17 November 2004, the last day for filing an answer, Garcia, et al. filed the aforementioned Motion to Dismiss[4] in regard to the petition for forfeiture on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of respondent Sandiganbayan over special civil actions for forfeiture under RA 1379. On even date, Garcia filed before this Court the first petition for certiorari, G.R. No. 165835, which the court dismissed as earlier mentioned. While G.R. No. 165835 was pending before this Court, the action for forfeiture proceeded.
	GR NO. 167103 2006-08-31	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
On 30 November 2004, Garcia, et al. filed their Opposition[6] to the Republic's motion in view of the pendency before this Court of the petition in G.R. No. 165835.
	GR NO. 167103 2006-08-31	MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
On 25 January 2005, Garcia, et al. filed their Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Admit Attached Answer,[7] arguing that the pendency of the petition in G.R. No. 165835 had the effect of holding in abeyance the proceedings in the forfeiture case before the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the insistence of the Sandiganbayan on technicalities, especially in declaring Garcia, et al. in default and allowing presentation of evidence ex parte, would only pre-empt this Court's action in G.R. No. 165835. They added that the principle of judicial courtesy should be applied.