Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE UY v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171175 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ARTURO F. DUCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The State, like the accused, is entitled to due process in criminal cases, that is, it must be given the opportunity to present its evidence in support of the charge. The doctrine consistently adhered to by this Court is that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.[18]
	GR NO. 156047 2005-04-12	ENGR. PEDRO C. RUBIO v. EMMANUEL M. PARAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
... [T]he doctrine consistently adhered to by this Court is that a denial of due process suffices to cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the government the impress of nullity. A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity of being heard. A void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or collaterally, by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked.[29]
	GR No. 149617 2003-09-03	JUDGE MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We have consistently held that a denial of due process suffices to cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the government the impress of nullity. [5]
	GR No. 112014 2000-12-05	TEODORO L. JARDELEZA v. GILDA L. JARDELEZA PARDO, J.
Very recently, in a related case, we ruled that Article 124 of the Family Code was not applicable to the situation of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. and that the proper procedure was an application for appointment of judicial guardian under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.[10]