Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARIEL C. VALLEJO v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 179408 2014-03-05	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ BRION, J.
A search warrant proceeding is a special criminal and judicial process akin to a writ of discovery. It is designed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to respond only to an incident in the main case, if one has already been instituted, or in anticipation thereof. Since it is at most incidental to the main criminal case, an order granting or denying a motion to quash a search warrant may be questioned only via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[46]
	GR No. 161106 2014-01-13	WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
A general warrant is defined as "(a) search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the property to be seized."[59] It is one that allows the "seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another" and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over which items to take.[60]
	GR No. 186560 2010-11-17	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. FERNANDO P. DE LEON NACHURA, J.
The Court has allowed numerous meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than to promote substantial justice must always be avoided.[22]
	GR NO. 164582 2007-03-28	PILAR ESPINA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Ordinarily, we would have remanded this case to the Court of Appeals for disposition on the merits. However, so as not to needlessly prolong the resolution of a comparatively simple controversy, we deem it just and equitable to decide the same on the merits.[23]
	GR NO. 164195 2007-02-06	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is already an accepted rule of procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding,[56] leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. If, based on the records, the pleadings, and other evidence, the dispute can be resolved by us, we will do so to serve the ends of justice instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings.[57]
	GR NO. 159606 2005-12-13	MARILYN BUNAO v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The consequence of our ruling would be for the Court to set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals and to direct it to reinstate the petition. Such step would, however, unduly prolong the disposition of the instant action. It is an accepted precept of procedural law that the Court may resolve the dispute in a single proceeding, instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings if, based on the records, pleadings, and other evidence, the matter can readily be ruled upon.[9] In view thereof, we shall act on the petition considering that the remaining issue raised is one of law.
	GR NO. 161776 2005-03-10	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. DAVID E. ESERJOSE AND ZENAIDA ESERJOSE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We, thus, resolve to relax the strict application of rules of procedure but only in regard to the amount of damages, in order to correct a grave or patent injustice.[7] It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the Court to excuse a technical lapse to attain the ends of justice.[8]