Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE C. MIRANDA v. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 202611 2015-11-23	ABNER MANGUBAT v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
The argument is, however, specious. "Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner."[42] Here, it is undisputed that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Abner, he having asked for affirmative relief therefrom several times.[43] As mentioned, what Abner questions is the RTC's jurisdiction over the case.
	GR No. 168539 2014-03-25	PEOPLE v. HENRY T. GO PERALTA, J.
The Court does not agree. Respondent should be reminded that prior to this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 168919, he already posted bail for his provisional liberty. In fact, he even filed a Motion for Consolidation[26] in Criminal Case No. 28091. The Court agrees with petitioner's contention that private respondent's act of posting bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation vests the SB with jurisdiction over his person. The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.[27]
	GR No. 178607 2012-12-05	DANTE LA. JIMENEZ v. EDWIN SORONGON BRION, J.
As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent jurisdiction of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court.[41]
	GR No. 199877 2012-08-13	PEOPLE v. ARTURO LARA Y ORBISTA REYES, J.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired through compulsory process such as a warrant of arrest or through his voluntary appearance, such as when he surrenders to the police or to the court.[19] Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. An accused submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court upon entering a plea and participating actively in the trial and this precludes him invoking any irregularities that may have attended his arrest.[20] Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient ground to reverse and set aside a conviction that was arrived upon a complaint duly filed and a trial conducted without error.[21] As Section 9, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.
	GR No. 164170 2009-04-16	MACA-ANGCOS ALAWIYA Y ABDUL v. CA CARPIO, J.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Rules governing a motion to quash[29] which requires that the accused should be under the custody of the law prior to the filing of a motion to quash on the ground that the officer filing the information had no authority to do so. Custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.[30] However, while the accused are not yet under the custody of the law, any question on the jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when the accused invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.[31]
	GR No. 151133 2008-06-30	AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NOEL MOLINA QUISUMBING, J.
The Labor Arbiter directed the NLRC Sheriff to garnish the surety bond issued by the petitioner. The latter, as surety, is mandated to comply with the writ of garnishment, for as earlier pointed out, the bond remains enforceable and under the jurisdiction of the NLRC until it is discharged. In turn, the petitioner may proceed to collect the amount it paid on the bond, plus the premiums due and demandable, plus any interest owing from Radon Security. This is pursuant to the principle of subrogation enunciated in Article 2067[35] of the Civil Code which we apply to the suretyship agreement between AFPGIC and Radon Security, in accordance with Section 178[36] of the Insurance Code. Finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58763, we sustain the challenged decision.
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant is mistaken. When the hearings for his petition for bail were conducted, the trial court had already acquired jurisdiction over his person. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.[19] In the case at bar, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the appellant when he was arrested on 19 March 1997. His arrest, not his arraignment, conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over his person.
	GR NO. 157331 2006-04-12	ARNOLD ALVA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender (citation omitted); while (the term) jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance (citation omitted). One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced (citation omitted).[42]