This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the petition filed by the respondent before the CA essentially questioned the criminal aspect of the Order of the RTC, not the civil aspect of the case. Consequently, the petition should have been filed by the State through the OSG. Since the petition for certiorari filed in the CA was not at the instance of the OSG, the same should have been outrightly dismissed by the CA. Respondent lacked the personality or legal standing to question the trial court's order because it is only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), who can bring actions on behalf of the State in criminal proceedings, before the Supreme Court and the CA.[28] Thus, the CA should have denied the petition outright. | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, petitioner is not represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in instituting the present petition, which contravenes established doctrine[20] that "the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers."[21] | |||||