June 2009 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Remedial Law, Legal/Judicial Ethics and Criminal Law

Here are selected June 2009 Philippine Supreme Court decisions on  remedial law, legal/judicial ethics and criminal law.

Remedial Law

Actions;  quasi in rem. The petition for cancellation of entries annotated at the back of OCT No. 40287 ought to have been directed against specific persons: namely, the heirs of Juan Soriano as appearing in Entry No. 20102 and, indubitably, against their successors-in-interest who have acquired different portions of the property over the years because it is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Accordingly, the Salazars should have impleaded as party defendants the heirs of Juan Soriano and/or Vicenta Macaraeg as well as those claiming ownership over the property under their names because they are indispensable parties. This was not done in this case. Since no indispensable party was  ever impleaded by the Salazars in their petition for cancellation of entry filed before Branch 63 of the RTC of Tarlac, herein petitioners are not bound by the dispositions of the said court. Consequently, the judgment or order of the said court never even acquired finality. Zenaida Acosta, et al. vs. Trinidad Salazar, et al., G.R. No. 161034.  June 30, 2009

Continue reading

May 2009 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Remedial Law

Here are selected May 2009 decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court on remedial law.

Certiorari; judicial discretion. A wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice in certiorari proceedings. The Supreme Court has not too infrequently given due course to a petition for certiorari, even when the proper remedy would have been an appeal, where valid and compelling considerations would warrant such a recourse. Moreover, the Supreme Court allowed a Rule 65 petition, despite the availability of plain, speedy or adequate remedy, in view of the importance of the issues raised therein. The rules were also relaxed by the Supreme Court after considering the public interest involved in the case; when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; when the broader interest of justice so requires; when the writs issued are null and void; or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.  People’s Broadcasting vs. The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009.
Continue reading

February 2009 Decisions on Arbitration Law and Remedial Law

Here are some of the decisions promulgated by the Supreme Court in February 2009 on arbitration law and remedial law.

Arbitration Law

1.     Collection of money claim. Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. (Excellent) entered into a contract with Multi-Rich Builders (Multi-Rich) for the construction of a garment factory. The construction contract provided that any dispute, controversy or difference between the parties shall be settled by arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Law (Republic Act No. 876). In relation to the issue of whether the regional trial court (RTC) has jurisdiction over money claims arising from the construction contract, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC should not have taken cognizance of the collection suit. The presence of the arbitration clause vested jurisdiction to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) over all construction disputes between Excellent and Multi-Rich. There is nothing in the law which limits the exercise of jurisdiction to complex or difficult cases. E.O. No. 1008 does not distinguish between claims involving payment of money or not. The CIAC acquires jurisdiction over a construction contract by the mere fact that the parties agreed to submit to voluntary arbitration.  Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc vs. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc., G.R, No.175048, February 10, 2009.

2.      Assignment of receivables. A dispute relating to the assignment of receivables by a construction contactor to a third party does not fall within the jusridiction of the CIAC. Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 180765, February 27, 2009.

Continue reading