Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193753 2012-09-26	LIVING v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make one an indispensable party.[17] An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined mandatorily either as plaintiffs or defendants. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, thus, without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[18]
	GR No. 189434 2012-04-25	FERDINAND R. MARCOS v. REPUBLIC SERENO, J.
Forfeiture cases impose neither a personal criminal liability, nor the civil liability that arises from the commission of a crime (ex delicto). The liability is based solely on a statute that safeguards the right of the State to recover unlawfully acquired properties.[29] Executive Order No. 14 (E.O. No. 14), Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former President Ferdinand Marcos, authorizes the filing of forfeiture suits that will proceed independently of any criminal proceedings. Section 3 of E.O. 14 empowered the PCGG to file independent civil actions separate from the criminal actions.[30]
	GR No. 185023 2011-08-24	CITY OF PASIG v. REPUBLIC CARPIO, J.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan,[10] the Court stated: The antecedent facts are stated by the Solicitor General as follows:
	GR No. 170122 2009-10-12	CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
Lest it be overlooked, Executive Order No. (EO) 14, Series of 1986, albeit defining only the jurisdiction over cases involving ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos, his immediate family and business associates, authorizes under its Sec. 3[17] the filing of forfeiture suits under RA 1379 which will proceed independently of any criminal proceedings. The Court, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[18] interpreted this provision as empowering the Presidential Commission on Good Government to file independent civil actions separate from the criminal actions.