Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183460 2013-03-12	SPS. NERIO AND SOLEDAD PADOR AND REY PADOR v. BARANGAY CAPTAIN BERNABE ARCAYAN SERENO, C.J.
On a final note, we reiterate that the privilege of the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. "Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations."[32]
	GR No. 189689 2012-11-13	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF LILIBETH O. LADAGA: LILIBETH O. LADAGA v. MAJ. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged.[40] The summary nature of amparo proceedings, as well as, the use of substantial evidence as standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative proceedings.[41]
	GR No. 184467 2012-06-19	EDGARDO NAVIA v. VIRGINIA PARDICO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Then came Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo[49] where Justice Arturo D. Brion wrote in his Separate Opinion that with the enactment of RA No. 9851, "the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is now a procedural law anchored, not only on the constitutional rights to the rights to life, liberty and security, but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an 'enforced or involuntary disappearance' is."[50] Therefore, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC's reference to enforced disappearances should be construed to mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of RA No. 9851. Meaning, in probing enforced disappearance cases, courts should read A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851.
	GR No. 186050 2011-12-13	ARTHUR BALAO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court in Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo[34] had the occasion to expound on the doctrine of command responsibility and why it has little bearing, if at all, in amparo proceedings.
	GR Nos. 184461-62 2011-05-31	LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC v. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo[43] expounded on the concept of command responsibility as follows: The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, "command responsibility," in its simplest terms, means the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict." In this sense, command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). (citations omitted; emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)[44]
	GR No. 190108 2010-10-19	DAVID E. SO v. ESTEBAN A. TACLA NACHURA, J.
Our decisions on the propriety of the issuance of these writs reiterate the foregoing rules. In Lourdes D. Rubrico, Jean Rubrico Apruebo, and Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Maj. Darwin Sy a.k.a Darwin Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, a certain Jonathan, P/Supt. Edgar B. Roquero, Arsenio C. Gomez, and Office of the Ombudsman,[14] we qualified: The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.[15]
	GR No. 189155 2010-09-07	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO PEREZ, J.
The case of Rubrico v. Arroyo,[101] which was the first to examine command responsibility in the context of an amparo proceeding, observed that the doctrine is used to pinpoint liability. Rubrico notes that:[102]