This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-07-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In Thornton v. Thornton,[7] this Court resolved the issue of the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in the light of the provision in RA 8369 giving family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over such petitions:The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the case since there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors. | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is worthy to recall here the rule with regard to jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases which this Court had the opportunity to clarify through In the Matter of Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus Richard Brian Thornton for and in behalf of the minor child Sequeira Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton v. Adelfa Francisco Thornton.[32] In said case, we declared that both this Court and the Court of Appeals still retain their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases despite the passage of Republic Act No. 8369[33] " the law conferring upon family courts the exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, thus:The Court of Appeals opines that RA 8369 impliedly repealed RA 7902 and BP 129 since, by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, the lawmakers intended it to be the sole court which can issue writs of habeas corpus. To the court a quo, the word "exclusive" apparently cannot be construed any other way. | |||||
|
2005-12-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Neither are we convinced that the motu proprio issuance of the 4 January 2005 Order, without the benefit of notice or hearing, sufficiently evinces bias on the part of Hon. Gingoyon. The motu proprio amendment by a court of an erroneous order previously issued may be sanctioned depending on the circumstances, in line with the long-recognized principle that every court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.[76] Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court further recognizes the inherent power of courts "to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice,"[77] a power which Hon. Gingoyon noted in his 10 January 2005 Omnibus Order.[78] This inherent power includes the right of the court to reverse itself, especially when in its honest opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment, and that to adhere to its decision will cause injustice to a party litigant.[79] | |||||