Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JIMMY L. BARNES v. MA. LUISA QUIJANO PADILLA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 179691 2013-12-04	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG BRION, J.
Also in Barnes v. Padilla,[21] we allowed the liberal construction of the Rules of Court and suspended the rule that the filing of a motion for extension of time to file an MR does not toll the period of appeal, to serve substantial justice. We ruled that the suspension of the rules was not entirely attributable to the petitioner and the allowance of the petition would not in any way prejudice the respondents.
	GR No. 169005 2013-01-28	WINSTON F. GARCIA v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner counters that the private respondent may not deprive this Court of appellate jurisdiction over the CA's April 11, 2005 Decision, citing Barnes v. Padilla.[31] He reiterates that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it ruled on the merits of the administrative case despite the absence of complete records and transformed the petition for certiorari filed by private respondent into an appeal. The CA also ignored the more than substantial evidence showing that private respondent was guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct that would justify the imposition of a higher penalty.
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
In Barnes v. Padilla,[11] the Court reinstated the petition despite the judgment having become final and executory due to the counsel's filing in the CA of a motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration (which was not allowed under the internal rules of the CA), instead of a timely motion for reconsideration. Aside from observing that the petitioner, although bound by the mistakes or neglect of his counsel, should not be allowed to suffer serious injustice from such mistakes or neglect of counsel, the Court decided to rescind the assailed decision of the CA, and to direct the Regional Trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the action for specific performance that had been erroneously dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping in view of a previously filed case for ejectment, considering that the ejectment action did not bar the action for specific performance.
	GR No. 161070 2008-04-14	JOHN HILARIO Y SIBAL v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While as a general rule, the failure of petitioner to file his motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period fixed by law rendered the resolution final and executory, we have on some occasions relaxed this rule. Thus, in Barnes v. Padilla[17] we held:However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
	GR NO. 156304 2006-10-23	ANACLETO R. MENESES v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is true that petitioners' failure to file their motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period rendered the CA Decision dated May 30, 2002 final and executory. For all intents and purposes, said Decision should now be immutable and unalterable; however, the Court relaxes this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.[21]
	GR NO. 124512 2006-06-27	MA. ROSARIO SUAREZ v. JUDGE MARTIN S. VILLARAMA TINGA, J.
As ruled in Habaluyas, settled is the rule that the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot be extended, except in cases pending with the Supreme Court as a court of last resort which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested.[17]
	GR NO. 146547 2006-06-20	VILLA MACASASA v. JUANITA SICAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
x x x It is beyond question that as per the applicable laws and jurisprudence on the matter, the levy and attempted execution of the second parcel of land is void for being in excess and beyond the original judgment award granted in favor of the La Torre spouses. For, as this Court held in the case of Mutual Security Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (153 SCRA 678 [1987]), "where the writ of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the writ has pro tanto no validity" (italics supplied). Stated categorically, an execution has been regarded as void when issued for a greater sum than is warranted by the judgment (Windor Steel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 275 [1981]). [27] (Emphasis Ours) Indeed, in Barnes v. Padilla,[28] the Court held that: x x x [A] final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.
	GR NO. 165644 2006-02-28	MANUEL B. ALORIA v. ESTRELLITA B. CLEMENTE CARPIO MORALES, J.
This Court's statement in Barnes v. Padilla[35] that "[t]he emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the constraints of technicalities"[36] is instructive.