Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GEORGE YAO v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 172671 2009-04-16	MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA QUISUMBING, J.
Faithful adherence to Section 14,[19] Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.[20]
	GR No. 166051 2008-04-08	SOLID HOMES v. EVELINA LASERNA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The constitutional mandate that, "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,"[22] does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions," which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.[23] In fact, in Yao v. Court of Appeals,[24] this Court has sanctioned the use of "memorandum decisions," a specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in accordance with the provisions of Section 40,[25] B.P. Blg. 129, as amended,[26] on the grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience and docket status of our courts. This Court likewise declared that "memorandum decisions" comply with the constitutional mandate.[27]
	GR No. 174874 2007-10-04	GILBERT G. GUY v. ASIA UNITED BANK GARCIA, J.
And lest it be overlooked, the DOJ Secretary, when he took cognizance of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, effectively excepted such motion from the operation of the aforequoted Section 13, supra, of DOJ Circular No. 70, s. 2000. This show of liberality is, to us, within the competence of the DOJ Secretary to make, and the Court loathes to disturb the same absent compelling proof, as here, that he acted out of whim and that the petitioner was out to delay the proceedings to the prejudice of AUB, as private complainant in I.S. Nos. 05-01-00365 and 05-03-02371, when he (petitioner) interposed his motion for reconsideration. While perhaps not in all fours, what the Court said in Yao v. Court of Appeals [15] augurs well for the petitioner:In the interest of justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance may be relaxed. In other words, if strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in absurdity and manifest injustices, or where the merit of a party's cause is apparent and outweighs consideration of non-compliance with certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed. A party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities.
	GR NO. 148420 2005-12-15	ANDREA TAN v. BAUSCH CORONA, J.
In Yao v. Court of Appeals,[22] we held:In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance may be relaxed. In other words, if strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in absurdity and manifest injustice or where the merit of a party's cause is apparent and outweighs consideration of non-compliance with certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed. A party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. Hence, the only relevant issue left for our resolution is whether or not the jurisdiction over the crime allegedly committed by petitioners is vested on the RTC.
	GR NOS. 160929-31 2005-08-16	RENE P. PONDEVIDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance, may be relaxed. In other words, if strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in absurdity and manifest injustice or where the merit of a party's cause is apparent and outweighs consideration of non-compliance with certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed. A party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. We, therefore, withhold legal approbation on the RTC decision at bar for its palpable failure to comply with the constitutional and legal mandates thereby denying YAO of his day in court. We also remind all magistrates to heed the demand of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. It is their solemn and paramount duty to uphold the Constitution and the principles enshrined therein, lest they be lost in the nitty-gritty of their everyday judicial work.[13]
	GR NO. 156169 2005-08-12	VICTOR ONGSON v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We emphasized in Velarde v. Social Justice Society,[26] citing Yao v. Court of Appeals,[27] that: "Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his decision."
	GR No. 160560 2005-07-29	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, the Court, in several cases, relaxed procedural rules even of the most mandatory character in the interest of substantial justice. Thus, in Yao v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court ruled:In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance, may be relaxed. In other words, if strict adherence to the letter of the law would result in absurdity and manifest injustice or where the merit of a party's cause is apparent and outweighs consideration of non-compliance with certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed. A party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. We therefore withhold legal approbation on the RTC decision at bar for its palpable failure to comply with the constitutional and legal mandates thereby denying YAO of his day in court. We also remind all magistrates to heed the demand of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. It is their solemn and paramount duty to uphold the Constitution and the principles enshrined therein, lest they be lost in the nitty-gritty of their everyday judicial work.[16]
	GR No. 125154 2001-09-28	DIGNA VERGEL v. CA PARDO, J.
We grant the petition. The Court of Appeals arbitrarily set aside the trial court's order of general default without factual basis save for its own gut feeling, ipse dixit.[10] Respondent's failure to file timely opposition to the application for land registration because she missed reading the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette[11] or in the newspaper "Malaya" issue of August 8, 1994,[12] in itself may not be considered excusable negligence.
	GR No. 113006 2000-11-23	ONG CHIU KWAN v. CA PARDO, J.
Although a memorandum decision is permitted under certain conditions, it cannot merely refer to the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court. The court must make a full findings of fact and conclusions of law of its own.[16]