Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ILUMINADO URBANO v. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
Notwithstanding its conclusion that the Manotok title was fraudulently reconstituted, the LRA noted that only the Regional Trial Court (RTC) could cancel the Manotok title as a Torrens title. It thus ruled,[11] that:
	GR No. 162525 2008-09-23	ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS v. CITY OF URDANETA QUISUMBING, J.
Neither is the law firm's appearance justified under the instances listed in Mancenido when local government officials can be represented by private counsel, such as when a claim for damages could result in personal liability. No such claim against said officials was made in this case. Note that before it joined the complainants, the city was the one sued, not its officials. That the firm represents Mayor Perez in criminal cases, suits in his personal capacity,[40] is of no moment.
	GR NO. 129318 2006-10-27	DIRECTOR CELSO PASCUAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICE v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, in the case at bar, petitioner is actually sued in his personal capacity inasmuch as his principal, the State, can never be the author of any wrongful act.[22] The Complaint filed by the private respondent with the RTC merely identified petitioner as Director of the Telecommunications Office, but did not categorically state that he was being sued in his official capacity. The mere mention in the Complaint of the petitioner's position as Regional Director of the Telecommunications Office does not transform the action into one against petitioner in his official capacity. What is determinative of the nature of the cause of action are the allegations in the complaint. It is settled that the nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action.[23] The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filling the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief.[24]
	GR NO. 156747 2005-02-23	ALLEN A. MACASAET v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under Presidential Decree No. 478, among the specific powers and functions of the OSG was to "represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings." This provision has been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases. In such capacity, it only takes over a criminal case after the same has reached the appellate courts.[48]