Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO ET AL. v. JUSTO LUKBAN ET AL.

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 197597 2015-04-08	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO v. WARDEN LEONEN, J.
Called the "great writ of liberty[,]"[76] the writ of habeas corpus "was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom."[77] The remedy of habeas corpus is extraordinary[78] and summary[79] in nature, consistent with the law's "zealous regard for personal liberty."[80]
	GR No. 197597 2015-04-08	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO v. WARDEN LEONEN, J.
Called the "great writ of liberty[,]"[76] the writ of habeas corpus "was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom."[77] The remedy of habeas corpus is extraordinary[78] and summary[79] in nature, consistent with the law's "zealous regard for personal liberty."[80]
	GR No. 197597 2015-04-08	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO v. WARDEN LEONEN, J.
Under Rule 102, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus "shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto."[81] The primary purpose of the writ "is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal."[82] "Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient."[83]
	GR No. 197597 2015-04-08	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO v. WARDEN LEONEN, J.
The nature of the restraint of liberty need not be related to any offense so as to entitle a person to the efficient remedy of habeas corpus. It may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy[84] or when there is an alleged violation of the liberty of abode.[85] In other words, habeas corpus effectively substantiates the implied autonomy of citizens constitutionally protected in the right to liberty in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.[86] Habeas corpus being a remedy for a constitutional right, courts must apply a conscientious and deliberate level of scrutiny so that the substantive right to liberty will not be further curtailed in the labyrinth of other processes.[87]
	GR No. 174759 2011-09-07	DENIS B. HABAWEL v. CTA BERSAMIN, J.
The power to punish contempt of court is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, and only occasionally should a court invoke its inherent power to punish contempt of court in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice must falter or fail.[46] We reiterate that the sanction the CTA First Division has visited upon the petitioners was preservative, for the sanction maintained and promoted the proper respect that attorneys and their clients should bear towards the courts of justice.
	GR No. 155849 2011-08-31	LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES BERSAMIN, J.
The test for criticizing a judge's decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Viewed through the prism of the test, the Sea Transport Update was not disrespectful, abusive, or slanderous, and did not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Thereby, the respondents were not guilty of indirect contempt of court. In this regard, then, we need to remind that the power to punish for contempt of court is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, and only occasionally should a court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice must falter or fail.[61] As judges we ought to exercise our power to punish contempt judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the power for the correction and preservation of the dignity of the Court, not for retaliation or vindictiveness.[62]
	AM No. 10-10-4-SC 2011-03-08	UP LAW FACULTY'S STATEMENT ON PLAGIARISM ALLEGATIONS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the court's jus cogens discussion is that it implies that the prohibitions against crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture are not jus cogens norms. Our article emphatically asserts the opposite. The Supreme Court's decision is available here: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm[17]
	GR No. 158802 2004-11-17	IN RE: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA REYNALDO DE VILLA v. DIRECTOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The extraordinary writ of habeas corpus has long been a haven of relief for those seeking liberty from any unwarranted denial of freedom of movement. Very broadly, the writ applies "to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which a person has been deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person has been withheld from the person entitled thereto".[22] Issuance of the writ necessitates that a person be illegally deprived of his liberty. In the celebrated case of Villavicencio v. Lukban,[23] we stated that "[a]ny restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient."[24]
	GR No. 139789 2000-05-12	ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO v. ERLINDA I. BILDNER PARDO, J.
As heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention,[13] or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is available where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary.[14] It is devised as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.[15]