This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Forfeiture cases impose neither a personal criminal liability, nor the civil liability that arises from the commission of a crime (ex delicto). The liability is based solely on a statute that safeguards the right of the State to recover unlawfully acquired properties.[29] Executive Order No. 14 (E.O. No. 14), Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former President Ferdinand Marcos, authorizes the filing of forfeiture suits that will proceed independently of any criminal proceedings. Section 3 of E.O. 14 empowered the PCGG to file independent civil actions separate from the criminal actions.[30] | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Republic and De Midgely, however, have already been modified if not altogether superseded[27] by La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[28] wherein the Court essentially ruled and elucidated on the current view in our jurisdiction, to wit: "[A] special appearance before the court--challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other grounds--is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court."[29] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This issue has been squarely passed upon in the recent case of Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,[47] where we reiterated our ruling in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals[48] and elucidated thus: Special Appearance to Question a Court's Jurisdiction Is Not | |||||