Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190912 2015-01-12	GARY FANTASTICO v. ELPIDIO MALICSE PERALTA, J.
The distinction between a "question of law" and a "question of fact" is settled. There is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.[6]
	GR No. 173946 2013-06-19	BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES v. CA PEREZ, J.
In the case at bar, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel since there was no valid service of summons upon him, precisely because he was already dead even before the complaint against him and his wife was filed in the trial court. The issues presented in this case are similar to those in the case of Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te.[41]
	GR No. 164258 2012-08-22	ESTRELLA TAGLAY v. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that, generally, a direct recourse to this Court in a petition for certiorari is highly improper for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts.[9] While this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this concurrence is not to be taken as an unrestrained freedom of choice as to which court the application for the writ will be directed.[10] There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.[11] This Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition.[12] A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these extraordinary writs is allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[13]
	GR No. 195097 2012-08-13	REPUBLIC v. MARLON MEDIDA REYES, J.
First, we address Medida's argument that the present petition raises a question of fact which is beyond the coverage of a petition for review on certiorari. The distinction between a "question of law" and a "question of fact" is settled. There is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.[16]
	GR No. 187567 2012-02-15	REPUBLIC v. NORA FE SAGUN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court from the decisions, final resolutions and orders of the RTC may be taken where only questions of law are raised or involved. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law.[11]
	GR No. 190994 2011-09-07	TONGONAN HOLDINGS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCAÑO MENDOZA, J.
An order or judgment of the RTC is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. On the other hand, an order which does not dispose of the case completely and indicates that other things remain to be done by the court as regards the merits, is interlocutory.[17]
	GR No. 184800 2010-05-05	WONINA M. BONIFACIO v. RTC OF MAKATI CARPIO MORALES, J.
The established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts,[29] as a rule, requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.[30] A regard for judicial hierarchy clearly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals.[31] The rule is not iron-clad, however, as it admits of certain exceptions.