Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. ROSARIO SUAREZ v. JUDGE MARTIN S. VILLARAMA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 191247 2013-07-10	FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, petitioner violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts which prohibits direct resort to this Court unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals.[9] In this case, petitioner should have first elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which has concurrent jurisdiction, together with this Court, over special civil actions for certiorari.[10] Even so, this principle is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions, such as in this case, when it is demanded by the broader interest of justice.[11]
	GR No. 172458 2011-12-14	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Although the failure to attach the required affidavit of service is not fatal if the registry receipt attached to the petition clearly shows service to the other party, [40] it must be remembered that this was not the only rule of procedure PNB failed to satisfy. In Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.[41] we said: It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[42]
	GR No. 183926 2010-03-29	GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE v. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE NACHURA, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[23] Our ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[24] is instructive: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[25]
	GR Nos. 130371 & 130855 2009-08-04	REPUBLIC v. FERDINAND R. MARCOS II PERALTA, J.
Moreover, the Court's pronouncement in Suarez v. Judge Villarama[20] is instructive: Section 4 of Circular No. 2-90, in effect at the time of the antecedents, provides that an appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong mode or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. This rule is now incorporated in Section 5, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
	GR No. 161237 2009-01-14	PERFECTO MACABABBAD v. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG BRION, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[34] A question of law may be resolved by the court without reviewing or evaluating the evidence.[35] No examination of the probative value of the evidence would be necessary to resolve a question of law.[36] The opposite is true with respect to questions of fact, which necessitate a calibration of the evidence.[37]
	GR No. 174373 2007-10-15	EMELINDA V. ABEDES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Suarez v. Villarama, Jr.,[50] we distinguish the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, viz: (1) Ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction; (2) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction; and (3) petition for review to the Supreme Court.[51] Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court elaborates on the modes of appeal: SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.
	GR NO. 143331 2007-10-05	FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC AZCUNA, J.
The Court, in Murillo v. Consul,[42] Suarez v. Villarama, Jr.[43] and Velayo-Fong v. Velayo,[44] had the occasion to clarify the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely: a) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; b) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and c) petition for review to this Court. The first mode of appeal is governed by Rule 41, and is taken to the CA on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode, provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to this Court only on questions of law.
	GR NO. 171756 2007-03-27	SPS. RICARDO IMBAT AND LILIA IMBAT v. SPS. MEDARDO SOLIVEN AND FLORENTINA NARVASA AND VINEZ HORTALEZA CARPIO MORALES, J.
By Resolution of July 27, 2004,[12] the appellate court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration being prohibited, except in the Supreme Court.[13]
	GR NO. 157745 2006-09-26	GENALYN D. YOUNG v. SPS. MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court begins with the unassailable premise that the RTC orders dismissing the case for failure to prosecute are final orders, because such orders of dismissal operate as a judgment on the merits.[30] This principle is now an express provision in Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, to wit:Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (emphasis supplied) It is firmly established, and with very few exceptions, that the remedy against such final order is appeal and not certiorari.[31]