This case has been cited 27 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| It is also required that the parties to the action for declaratory relief be those whose rights or interests are affected by the contract or statute in question.[133] "There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the 'ripening seeds' of one"[134] between the parties. The issue between the parties "must be ripe for judicial determination."[135] An action for declaratory relief based on theoretical or hypothetical questions cannot be filed for our courts are not advisory courts.[136] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Velarde v. Social Justice Society,[139] this court refused to resolve the issue of "whether or not [a religious leader's endorsement] of a candidate for elective office or in urging or requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specific candidate is violative [of the separation clause]."[140] According to the court, there was no justiciable controversy and ordered the dismissal of the Social Justice Society's petition for declaratory relief. This court explained: Indeed, SJS merely speculated or anticipated without factual moorings that, as religious leaders, the petitioner and his co-respondents below had endorsed or threatened to endorse a candidate or candidates for elective offices; and that such actual or threatened endorsement "will enable [them] to elect men to public office who [would] in turn be forever beholden to their leaders, enabling them to control the government"[;] and "pos[ing] a clear and present danger of serious erosion of the people's faith in the electoral process[;] and reinforc[ing] their belief that religious leaders determine the ultimate result of elections," which would then be violative of the separation clause. | |||||
|
2014-11-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Essentially, the oil companies are fighting for their right to property. They allege that they stand to lose billions of pesos if forced to relocate. However, based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life enjoys precedence over the right to property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is not. When the state or LGU's exercise of police power clashes with a few individuals' right to property, the former should prevail.[135] | |||||
|
2013-09-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Pertinently, a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.[38] Corollary thereto, by "ripening seeds" it is meant, not that sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full blown battle that looms ahead. The concept describes a state of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration.[39] | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the absence of findings of fact and of any statement of the law and jurisprudence on which the awards of actual and moral damages, as well as of attorney's fees, were based was a fatal flaw that invalidated the decision of the RTC only as to such awards. As the Court declared in Velarde v. Social Justice Society,[123] the failure to comply with the constitutional requirement for a clear and distinct statement of the supporting facts and law "is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" and that "(d)ecisions or orders issued in careless disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck down as void."[124] The other item granted by the RTC (i.e., P503,462.74) shall stand, subject to the action of the COA as stated herein. | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We thus agree with the petitioner that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-488 constituted a denial of due process. Elementary due process demands that the parties to a litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well as an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.[23] Where the reasons are absent, a decision (such as the December 16, 2003 dismissal order) has absolutely nothing to support it and is thus a nullity.[24] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Since it is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court,[54] the rule is settled that a decision that does not conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution and the law is void and deemed legally inexistent.[55] In Yao v. Court of Appeals,[56] this Court ruled as follows: Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his decision. | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that decisions must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. Decisions of courts must be able to address the issues raised by the parties through the presentation of a comprehensive analysis or account of factual and legal findings of the court.[28] It is evident that the CA failed to comply with these requirements. PAGC, in its Resolution dated December 5, 2003, discussing each of the twelve allegations against Cataquiz, determined that he should be dismissed from the government service and that he could be held liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, in relation to Section 46(b)(27), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of E.O. No. 292, to wit: R.A. No. 3019 | |||||
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as "the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another." Its essential elements are the following: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) such defendant's act or omission that is violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the former to the latter.[133] | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| An action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties thereunder.[21] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, an action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The purpose of the remedy is to interpret or to determine the validity of the written instrument and to seek a judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties thereunder.[14] For the action to prosper, it must be shown that (1) there is a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.[15] Suffice it to state that, in the petition filed with the trial court, petitioner failed to allege the ultimate facts which satisfy these requisites. Not only that, as admitted by the petitioner, the provision the interpretation of which is being sought has already been breached by the respondents. Declaratory relief cannot thus be availed of.[16] | |||||
|
2008-11-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Velarde v. Social Justice Society,[48] reiterating the doctrine in Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,[49] the Court held that "parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove that they have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation."[50] A taxpayer's suit "may be properly brought only when there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power."[51] Here, there is no question that the conduct of the plebiscites required under the cityhood laws and the consequent release of the respective IRAs of respondent municipalities as cities, entails the spending of funds sourced from the public coffers. Clearly, there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In general, the essential parts of a decision or order consist of the following: (1) a statement of the case; (2) a statement of the facts; (3) the issues or assignment of errors; (4) the court ruling; and (5) the dispositive portion.[6] In a civil case such as this, the dispositive portion should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted and the costs.[7] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Moreover, although respondents did not directly raise the issue of validity of the deed of donation at the commencement of the case before the trial court, it was stipulated[64] by the parties during the pre-trial conference. In any event, this Court has authority to inquire into any question necessary in arriving at a just decision of a case before it.[65] Though not specifically questioned by the parties, additional issues may also be included, if deemed important for substantial justice to be rendered.[66] | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Araneta then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court attributing error to the Court of Appeals in failing to recognize that it had a better right of possession over the property than did Dimson.[21] | |||||
|
2007-08-09 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| The resolution of the court in a given issue embodied in the fallo or dispositive part of a decision or order is the controlling factor as to settlement of rights of the parties.[9] Thus, where there is a conflict between the fallo and the ratio decidendi or body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing.[10] The rule applies when the dispositive part of a final decision or order is definite, clear, and unequivocal, and can wholly be given effect without need of interpretation or construction.[11] | |||||
|
2006-08-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not the Ninth Division of the CA had jurisdiction to resolve questions or issues related to the enforcement of the decision of the Sixteenth Division of the CA in CA-G.R. No. 58836 was not raised by the parties in their pleadings. However, issues or errors not raised by the parties may be resolved by this Court where, as in this case, the issue is one of jurisdiction; it is necessary in arising at a just decision; and the resolution of the issues raised by the parties depend upon the determination of the unassigned issue or error, or is necessary to give justice to the parties.[33] | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Considering that the crux of the controversy centers on a perceived vagueness in the fallo of the trial court's decision, it is necessary to restate the guidelines on the contents of a proper dispositive portion enunciated in Velarde v. Social Justice Society, [12] viz:In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs. The following test of completeness may be applied. First, the parties should know their rights and obligations. Second, they should know how to execute the decision under alternative contingencies. Third, there should be no need for further proceedings to dispose of the issues. Fourth, the case should be terminated by according the proper relief. The "proper relief" usually depends upon what the parties seek in their pleadings. It may declare their rights and duties, command the performance of positive prestations, or order them to abstain from specific acts. The disposition must also adjudicate costs. In sum, petitioner argues that in substantially reducing the amount of damages, by way of unrealized income, from 100 cavans to 16.5 cavans of palay annually, the trial court was merely "clarifying" an ambiguity between the appellate tribunal's pronouncements in the body of its decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 15784 which states that 12345 | |||||
|
2005-09-21 |
|||||
| Parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation.[26] The expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds.[27] The resolutions being assailed were appropriations ordinances. Petitioner alleged that these ordinances were "passed for the business, occupation, enjoyment and benefit of private respondents"[28] (that is, allegedly for the private benefit of respondents) because even before they were passed, respondent Mayor Cafe and private respondents had already entered into lease contracts for the construction and award of the market stalls.[29] Private respondents admitted they deposited P40,000 each with the municipal treasurer, which amounts were made available to the municipality during the construction of the stalls. The deposits, however, were needed to ensure the speedy completion of the stalls after the public market was gutted by a series of fires.[30] Thus, the award of the stalls was necessarily limited only to those who advanced their personal funds for their construction.[31] | |||||
|
2005-08-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We emphasized in Velarde v. Social Justice Society,[26] citing Yao v. Court of Appeals,[27] that: "Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his decision." | |||||
|
2005-06-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The importance of the fallo or dispository portion of a decision cannot be gainsaid. The disposition should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs.[30] As of 13 July 1987 when the Resolution of even date was issued, the question of ownership of the subject property remained unresolved as a result of the vacation of the 1983 Resolution embodying the partial judgment. Yet the 13 July 1987 Resolution failed to rule upon this question of ownership, and its fallo was limited to the adjudication of damages.[31] The 05 October 1987 Order denying private respondents' motion for reconsideration is similarly deficient. | |||||
|
2005-04-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court recently explicated the contents of a proper dispositive portion in Velarde v. Social Justice Society:[44] In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs. The following test of completeness may be applied. First, the parties should know their rights and obligations. Second, they should know how to execute the decision under alternative contingencies. Third, there should be no need for further proceedings to dispose of the issues. Fourth, the case should be terminated by according the proper relief. The "proper relief" usually depends upon what the parties seek in their pleadings. It may declare their rights and duties, command the performance of positive prestations, or order them to abstain from specific acts. The disposition must also adjudicate costs.[45] We have ruled before against recognizing statements in the body of a decision as part of the dispositive portion. In Velarde, the respondents insisted that a statement by the trial court found on page ten (10) of the fourteen (14)-page decision should be considered as part of the dispositive portion. The Court disagreed,[46] and cited the precedent in Magdalena Estate, Inc. v. Hon. Caluag:[47] . . . The quoted finding of the lower court cannot supply deficiencies in the dispositive portion. It is a mere opinion of the court and the rule is settled that where there is a conflict between the dispositive part and the opinion, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing.[48] In Contreras v. Felix,[49] the Court reasoned: More to the point is another well-recognized doctrine, that the final judgment as rendered is the judgment of the court irrespective of all seemingly contrary statements in the decision. "A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The latter is the informal expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order or decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion forms no part of the judgment. So, . . . there is a distinction between the findings and conclusions of a court and its Judgment. While they may constitute its decision and amount to the rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment itself. They amount to nothing more than an order for judgment, which must, of course, be distinguished from the judgment." (1 Freeman on Judgments, p. 6.) At the root of the doctrine that the premises must yield to the conclusion is perhaps, side by side with the needs of writing finis to litigations, the recognition of the truth that "the trained intuition of the judge continually leads him to right results for which he is puzzled to give unimpeachable legal reasons." "It is an everyday experience of those who study judicial decisions that the results are usually sound, whether the reasoning from which the results purport to flow is sound or not." (The Theory of Judicial Decision, Pound, 36 Harv. Law Review, pp. 9, 51.) It is not infrequent that the grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact views of the court, especially those of concurring justices in a collegiate court. We often encounter in judicial decisions, lapses, findings, loose statements and generalities which do not bear on the issues or are apparently opposed to the otherwise sound and considered result reached by the court as expressed in the dispositive part, so called, of the decision.[50] Moreover, we are guided by the evident fact that the respondent-judge did not intend to make his conclusions on who should be awarded the Project as part of the dispositive portion of his order. The language deliberately employed in the order, "must now seriously consider and effect the award," indicates that the judge was hesitant to definitively grant the relief sought by Nolasco, which was that the trial court award the bid to China International and direct Sec. Datumanong to take steps towards this end. Instead, it stated that Sec. Datumanong "must now seriously consider and effect the award" to China International. Undoubtedly, the word "must" is mandatory in character, but it is used in conjunction with "consider". In short, the trial court noted that the DPWH Secretary "must think about" effecting an award to China International. | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| To repeat, a decision with nothing to support it is a patent nullity.[23] It should be struck down and set aside as void.[24] Acting with utmost regard for the rights of petitioners, however, the CA did not outrightly set aside the Decisions of the NLRC and the labor arbiter. Instead, the CA remanded the case for further proceedings to allow petitioners to prove their claim of illegal dismissal. The remand of the case, instead of the dismissal of the Complaint, was beneficial to petitioners and was made in consideration of the policy to protect and promote the general welfare of employees. | |||||
|
2004-10-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| With the assistance of the clerk of court, a checklist should be prepared, indicating the steps to be taken to keep cases moving.[14] While decision-writing is a matter of personal style, judges are well-advised to prepare concise but complete as well as correct and clear decisions, orders or resolutions.[15] With a table or calendar indicating the cases submitted for decision, they should note the exact day, month and year when the 90-day period is to expire. | |||||
|
2004-06-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved."[29] Since the parcels they claim are properties of the public domain, only the government can bring an action to nullify the TCTs.[30] | |||||