This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Divinagracia v. Parilla,[135] Macawadib v. Philippine National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management,[136] People v. Go,[137] and Valdez-Tallorin v. Heirs of Tarona,[138] among others, this court annulled judgments rendered by lower courts in the absence of indispensible parties. | |||||
|
2015-04-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Before we delve into the merits of the Petition, it would be best to address respondents' argument that "no person came forward to contest the reconstitution of the subject title even after the requirements of posting and publication have been complied with," in light with our ruling in Macawadib v. Philippine National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management,[18] thus: On the question of whether or not respondent is estopped from assailing the decision of the RTC for failure of the OSG, as government representative, to participate in the proceedings before the trial court or to file an opposition to petitioner's petition for correction of entries in his service records, this Court rules that such an apparent oversight has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the petitioner filed before the CA. Neither can the State, as represented by the government, be considered in estoppel due to the petitioner's seeming acquiescence to the judgment of the RTC when it initially made corrections to some of petitioner's records with the PNP. This Court has reiterated time and again that the absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance, because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents. Nor is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for correction of entries if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.[19] | |||||