Lawyerly

GR No. 156358

2011-08-17

ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO

BERSAMIN, J.

We also observe that the rule that a petition should have been brought under Rule 65 instead of under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (or vice versa) is not inflexible or rigid.[36] The inflexibility or rigidity of application of the rules of procedure is eschewed in order to serve the higher ends of justice. Thus, substance is given primacy over form, for it is paramount that the rules of procedure are not applied in a very rigid technical sense, but used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim is defeated.[37] Verily, the strict application of procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the merits.[38] To institute a guideline, therefore, the Rules of Court expressly mandates that the rules of procedure "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[39]

GR No. 173846

2011-02-02

JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO v. RTC

PERALTA, J.

The rehabilitation of SIHI and the settlement of claims against the corporation is not a legal ground for the extinction of petitioners' criminal liabilities. There is no reason why criminal proceedings should be suspended during corporate rehabilitation, more so, since the prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[26] As correctly observed in Rosario,[27] it would be absurd for one who has engaged in criminal conduct could escape punishment by the mere filing of a petition for rehabilitation by the corporation of which he is an officer.

GR NO. 171532

2007-08-07

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK v. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[23] This Court had the occasion to distinguish a final order or resolution from an interlocutory one in the case of Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, thus:x x x A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented on the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."

GR NO. 160451

2007-02-09

EDUARDO G. RICARZE v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Under Section 5, Rule 110[20] of the Revised Rules of Rules, all criminal actions covered by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direct supervision and control of the public prosecutor. Thus, even if the felonies or delictual acts of the accused result in damage or injury to another, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability based on the said criminal acts is impliedly instituted, and the offended party has not waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it separately or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, the prosecution of the action (including the civil) remains under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is a public function. Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will act as private prosecutor for the protection of his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. A separate action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[21]

GR NOS. 169727-28

2006-08-18

BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In People v. Sandiganbayan[40] and Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[41] this Court ruled that the AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled corporation, and that its funds are in the nature of public funds. Under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers of government owned or controlled corporations.[42] Under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes.[43]

GR NO. 151452

2005-08-29

SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS AND ESPERANZA C. SANTOS v. NORMANDIE B. PIZARDO

TINGA, J.

Now the procedural issue. Admittedly, petitioners should have appealed the order of dismissal of the trial court instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Such procedural misstep, however, should be exempted from the strict application of the rules in order to promote their fundamental objective of securing substantial justice.[20] We are loathe to deprive petitioners of the indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a final judgment of conviction based solely on a technicality. It is our duty to prevent such an injustice.[21]

GR NO. 141805

2005-08-08

GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[29] In that sense, it does not attain finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial court issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, can be considered an appropriate remedy to assail the same.[30]

GR No. 163597

2005-07-29

HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP. v. ASIA DYNAMIC ELECTRIX CORP.

PUNO, J.

[14] Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140576-99, December 13, 2004.

GR No. 151452

2005-07-29

SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS AND ESPERANZA C. SANTOS v. NORMANDIE B. PIZARDO

TINGA, J.

Now the procedural issue. Admittedly, petitioners should have appealed the order of dismissal of the trial court instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Such procedural misstep, however, should be exempted from the strict application of the rules in order to promote their fundamental objective of securing substantial justice.[20] We are loathe to deprive petitioners of the indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a final judgment of conviction based solely on a technicality. It is our duty to prevent such an injustice.[21]

GR No. 141805

2005-07-08

GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[29] In that sense, it does not attain finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial court issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, can be considered an appropriate remedy to assail the same.[30]

GR NO. 163996

2005-06-09

JUAN G. RIVERA v. PEOPLE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We recognize the importance of procedural rules in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice.[10] However, the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, as they are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.[11] That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence.[12]

GR NO. 150798

2005-03-31

RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. SISENANDO S. SINGSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indubitably, the Resolution of the CA dated July 31, 2001 denying the petitioner's omnibus motion is interlocutory in nature. The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[17] The Court distinguished a final order or resolution from an interlocutory one in Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[18] as follows:… A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res adjudicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."

GR NO. 155791

2005-03-16

MELBA QUINTO v. DANTE ANDRES

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[17] The civil liability of such person established in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.[18] When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.[19] With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil.[20]

GR NO. 149357

2005-03-04

MOBILIA PRODUCTS v. HAJIME UMEZAWA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The contention of the petitioner People of the Philippines is not correct. All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.[16] When the civil action for civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene, by counsel, in the prosecution of the offense.[17] In Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[18] we held that under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will then act as private prosecutor for the protection of his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. A separate action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[19]

	GR No. 156358 2011-08-17	ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO BERSAMIN, J.
We also observe that the rule that a petition should have been brought under Rule 65 instead of under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (or vice versa) is not inflexible or rigid.[36] The inflexibility or rigidity of application of the rules of procedure is eschewed in order to serve the higher ends of justice. Thus, substance is given primacy over form, for it is paramount that the rules of procedure are not applied in a very rigid technical sense, but used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim is defeated.[37] Verily, the strict application of procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the merits.[38] To institute a guideline, therefore, the Rules of Court expressly mandates that the rules of procedure "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[39]
	GR No. 173846 2011-02-02	JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO v. RTC PERALTA, J.
The rehabilitation of SIHI and the settlement of claims against the corporation is not a legal ground for the extinction of petitioners' criminal liabilities. There is no reason why criminal proceedings should be suspended during corporate rehabilitation, more so, since the prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[26] As correctly observed in Rosario,[27] it would be absurd for one who has engaged in criminal conduct could escape punishment by the mere filing of a petition for rehabilitation by the corporation of which he is an officer.
	GR NO. 171532 2007-08-07	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK v. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[23] This Court had the occasion to distinguish a final order or resolution from an interlocutory one in the case of Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, thus:x x x A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented on the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."
	GR NO. 160451 2007-02-09	EDUARDO G. RICARZE v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under Section 5, Rule 110[20] of the Revised Rules of Rules, all criminal actions covered by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direct supervision and control of the public prosecutor. Thus, even if the felonies or delictual acts of the accused result in damage or injury to another, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability based on the said criminal acts is impliedly instituted, and the offended party has not waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it separately or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, the prosecution of the action (including the civil) remains under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is a public function. Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will act as private prosecutor for the protection of his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. A separate action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[21]
	GR NOS. 169727-28 2006-08-18	BRIG. GEN. JOSE S. RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
In People v. Sandiganbayan[40] and Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[41] this Court ruled that the AFP-RSBS is a government-owned and controlled corporation, and that its funds are in the nature of public funds. Under Section 4(a)(1)(g) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers of government owned or controlled corporations.[42] Under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes.[43]
	GR NO. 151452 2005-08-29	SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS AND ESPERANZA C. SANTOS v. NORMANDIE B. PIZARDO TINGA, J.
Now the procedural issue. Admittedly, petitioners should have appealed the order of dismissal of the trial court instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Such procedural misstep, however, should be exempted from the strict application of the rules in order to promote their fundamental objective of securing substantial justice.[20] We are loathe to deprive petitioners of the indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a final judgment of conviction based solely on a technicality. It is our duty to prevent such an injustice.[21]
	GR NO. 141805 2005-08-08	GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[29] In that sense, it does not attain finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial court issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, can be considered an appropriate remedy to assail the same.[30]
	GR No. 163597 2005-07-29	HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP. v. ASIA DYNAMIC ELECTRIX CORP. PUNO, J.
[14] Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140576-99, December 13, 2004.
	GR No. 151452 2005-07-29	SPS. ANTONIO C. SANTOS AND ESPERANZA C. SANTOS v. NORMANDIE B. PIZARDO TINGA, J.
Now the procedural issue. Admittedly, petitioners should have appealed the order of dismissal of the trial court instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Such procedural misstep, however, should be exempted from the strict application of the rules in order to promote their fundamental objective of securing substantial justice.[20] We are loathe to deprive petitioners of the indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a final judgment of conviction based solely on a technicality. It is our duty to prevent such an injustice.[21]
	GR No. 141805 2005-07-08	GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[29] In that sense, it does not attain finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial court issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, can be considered an appropriate remedy to assail the same.[30]
	GR NO. 163996 2005-06-09	JUAN G. RIVERA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We recognize the importance of procedural rules in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice.[10] However, the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, as they are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.[11] That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence.[12]
	GR NO. 150798 2005-03-31	RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. SISENANDO S. SINGSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indubitably, the Resolution of the CA dated July 31, 2001 denying the petitioner's omnibus motion is interlocutory in nature. The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[17] The Court distinguished a final order or resolution from an interlocutory one in Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[18] as follows:… A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res adjudicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."
	GR NO. 155791 2005-03-16	MELBA QUINTO v. DANTE ANDRES CALLEJO, SR., J.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[17] The civil liability of such person established in Articles 100, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.[18] When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.[19] With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil.[20]
	GR NO. 149357 2005-03-04	MOBILIA PRODUCTS v. HAJIME UMEZAWA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The contention of the petitioner People of the Philippines is not correct. All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.[16] When the civil action for civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene, by counsel, in the prosecution of the offense.[17] In Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[18] we held that under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will then act as private prosecutor for the protection of his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. A separate action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be avoided. With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.[19]