Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOHNSON LEE v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 156684 2011-04-06	SPS. ANTONIO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner must further allege in the petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate.[18] A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.[19]
	GR No. 156684 2011-04-06	SPS. ANTONIO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner must further allege in the petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate.[18] A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.[19]
	GR No. 170633 2007-10-17	MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. SSANGYONG CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Because these documents are mere photocopies, they are simply secondary evidence, admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which states, "[w]hen the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated." Furthermore, the offeror of secondary evidence must prove the predicates thereof, namely: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places. It has been held that where the missing document is the foundation of the action, more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only collaterally involved.[103]
	GR No. 174373 2007-10-15	EMELINDA V. ABEDES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To reiterate, for a petition for certiorari or prohibition to be granted, it must set out and demonstrate, plainly and distinctly, all the facts essential to establish a right to a writ.[47] The petitioner must allege in his petition and has the burden of establishing facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate and that (a) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and, (c) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[48] These matters must be threshed out and shown by petitioner.
	GR No. 164966 2007-06-08	ROLANDO TAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Basic is the rule that the writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.[9] It is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and when the proceedings are done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner must allege in his petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate.[10] A remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.[11] Further, the writ will not lie to correct errors of judgment but only errors of jurisdiction. As long as the tribunal acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment which are correctible by a timely appeal.[12] In determining whether a tribunal acted in grave abuse of discretion, mere abuse of discretion is not enough. There must be grave abuse of discretion as where the tribunal exercised its power in an arbitrary or despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as would amount to an evasion, or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act in contemplation of law.[13]
	GR NO. 168088 2007-04-04	SAN FERNANDO RURAL BANK v. PAMPANGA OMNIBUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
Certiorari is a remedy narrow in its scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[67] Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to correct errors of judgment. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. Error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal if the aggrieved party raised factual and legal issues; or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if only questions of law are involved.[68]
	GR NO. 170491 2007-04-03	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. RAMON G. CODILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, no error can be ascribed to the court a quo in denying admission and excluding from the records petitioner's Exhibits "A", "C", "D", "E", "H" and its sub-markings, "I", "J" and its sub-markings, "K", "L", "M" and its sub-markings, "N" and its sub-markings, "O", "P" and its sub-markings, "Q" and its sub-markings, and "R". The trial court was correct in rejecting these photocopies as they violate the best evidence rule and are therefore of no probative value being incompetent pieces of evidence. Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery, and modern technique of electronic copying, the best evidence rule was designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the withholding of the originals.[8] But the modern justification for the rule has expanded from the prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law.[9] The importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns addressed by the best evidence rule.[10]
	GR NO. 165606 2006-02-06	DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Lee v. People,[38] the petitioner therein filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA assailing the order of the trial court admitting certain documents offered by the prosecution. The Court declared that the order admitting in evidence the disputed documents was issued by the trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and that even if erroneous, the same is a mere error of judgment and not of jurisdiction, and hence, the remedy of the petitioner was to appeal in due course.[39] In the present case, there is likewise no dispute that the trial court had jurisdiction over the case. As such, it had jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility of the documents offered in evidence.