Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELIGIO P. MALLARI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NOS. 178085 - 178086 2015-09-14	UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF LABOR JARDELEZA, J.
Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements therefor and shall be disposed of in accordance with the second paragraph of this section.[91] (Emphasis in original.)
	AC. No. 8261 2015-03-11	JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN v. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO BERSAMIN, J.
The aforementioned duty of the Register of Deeds is ministerial in nature.[21] A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.[22]
	GR No. 163999 2014-07-09	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MILLARD R. OCAMPO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Section 4,[54] Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a special civil action for certiorari should be instituted within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the judgment, order, or resolution being assailed. The 60-day period, however, is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay, which would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.[55] Thus, strict compliance of this rule is mandatory and imperative. [56] But like all rules, the 60-day limitation may be relaxed "for the most persuasive of reasons," which must be sufficiently shown by the party invoking liberality. [57]
	GR No. 162757 2013-12-11	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO BERSAMIN, J.
A writ of possession commands the sheriff to place a person in possession of real property. It may be issued in the following instances, namely: (1) land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (2) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged property, and no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, pending redemption under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118; and (4) execution sales, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.[14]
	GR No. 162757 2013-12-11	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO BERSAMIN, J.
With particular reference to an extra-judicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale may apply ex parte with the RTC of the province or place where the property or any part of it is situated, to give the purchaser possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor should it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of Act No. 3135; and the RTC, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession be issued, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall then execute said order immediately.[15] We underscore that the application for a writ of possession by the purchaser in a foreclosure sale conducted under Act No. 3135 is ex parte and summary in nature, brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice being sent by the court to any person adverse in interest. The relief is granted even without giving an opportunity to be heard to the person against whom the relief is sought.[16] Its nature as an ex parte petition under Act No. 3135, as amended, renders the application for the issuance of a writ of possession a non-litigious proceeding.[17] Indeed, the grant of the writ of possession is but a ministerial act on the part of the issuing court, because its issuance is a matter of right on the part of the purchaser.[18] The judge issuing the order for the granting of the writ of possession pursuant to the express provisions of Act No. 3135 cannot be charged with having acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[19]
	AM No. RTJ-11-2259 2013-10-22	MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PER CURIAM
Thus, a person may be charged with indirect contempt only by either of two alternative ways, namely: (1) by a verified petition, if initiated by a party; or (2) by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, if made by a court against which the contempt is committed. In short, a charge of indirect contempt must be initiated through a verified petition, unless the charge is directly made by the court against which the contemptuous act is committed.[85]
	GR No. 160641 2012-06-20	RAFAEL J. ROXAS v. ARTEMIO S. TIPON PEREZ, J.
It may be noted that a person may be charged with indirect contempt by either of two alternative ways, namely: (1) by a verified petition, if initiated by a party; or (2) by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, if made by a court against which the contempt is committed. In short, a charge of indirect contempt must be initiated through a verified petition, unless the charge is directly made by the court against which the contemptuous act is committed.[19]