Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

1LT. JULIUS R. NAVALES v. GEN. NARCISO ABAYA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. Once vested by law on a particular court or body, the jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature through the enactment of a law. The power to change the jurisdiction of the courts is a matter of legislative enactment, which none but the legislature may do. Congress has the sole power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the courts.[87]
	GR NO. 174994 2007-08-31	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF PERSON OF ARMY MAJOR JASON LAUREANO AQUINO v. LT. GEN. HERMOGENES C. ESPERON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Perforce, we do not find that the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus for the person of Major Aquino. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled to it.[50] As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so.[51] Its essential object and purpose is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal.[52] In the case at bar, Major Aquino stands charged in court martial proceedings for alleged violations of Article 67 (Attempting to Begin or Create Mutiny) and Article 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman) of the Articles of War. The legality of Major Aquino's restraint having been settled, the privilege of the writ is unavailing.
	GR NO. 164007 2006-08-10	LT. ARTURO PASCUA v. GEN. NARCISO ABAYA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Navales v. Abaya.,[24] this Court, through Mr. Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., held:We agree with the respondents that the sweeping declaration made by the RTC (Branch 148) in the dispositive portion of its Order dated February 11, 2004 that all charges before the court-martial against the accused were not service-connected, but absorbed and in furtherance of the crime of coup d'etat, cannot be given effect. x x x, such declaration was made without or in excess of jurisdiction; hence, a nullity.