Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MICHAELANGELO v. HUMBERTO D. MEER

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182718 2008-09-26	JULIO B. PURCON v. MRM PHILIPPINES REYES, R.T., J.
In Dela Cruz v. Andres,[10] We reiterated Our pronouncement in Mesina v. Meer,[11] that a petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Court explained that under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Most importantly, it should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision, viz.:Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. - When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.[12] (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
The CA relied on justice and equity in granting an additional period of five (5) days from receipt of the February 18, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 to pay the balance due for the sale of the four lots.[38] While we commiserate with the plight of respondent, the CA ruling will not prevail over the established axiom that equity is applied only in the absence of and never against statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. [39] For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement.[40] Equity as an exceptional extenuating circumstance does not favor, nor may it be used to reward, the indolent. This Court will not allow a party, in guise of equity, to benefit from respondent's own negligence.[41]
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
The CA relied on justice and equity in granting an additional period of five (5) days from receipt of the February 18, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 to pay the balance due for the sale of the four lots.[38] While we commiserate with the plight of respondent, the CA ruling will not prevail over the established axiom that equity is applied only in the absence of and never against statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. [39] For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement.[40] Equity as an exceptional extenuating circumstance does not favor, nor may it be used to reward, the indolent. This Court will not allow a party, in guise of equity, to benefit from respondent's own negligence.[41]
	GR NO. 161864 2007-04-27	SPS. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ AND TERESITA DELA CRUZ v. SPS. FELICIANO ANDRES AND ERLINDA AUSTRIA QUISUMBING, J.
While the law uses the phrase "any court," it refers only to Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts.[9] The procedure in the Court of Appeals and this Court are governed by separate provisions of the Rules of Court and may, from time to time, be supplemented by additional rules promulgated by this Court through resolutions or circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals allows the remedy of petition for relief in the Court of Appeals.[10]
	GR NOS. 141810 & 141812 2007-02-02	VICENTE DELOS SANTOS v. FRED ELIZALDE VELASCO, JR., J.
Furthermore, petitioners contend that despite their Motion for Reconsideration had been filed out of time, this should have been admitted on the ground of equity. However, equitable grounds cannot be sought when the party is guilty of negligence. Thus, We ruled in Mesina v. Meer that "this Court will not allow petitioners, in guise of equity, to benefit from their own negligence."[38]
	GR NO. 168498 2006-06-16	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In exceptional cases, when the mistake of counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, this Court affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right. But this opportunity is unavailing in the case at bar, especially since petitioner had squandered the various opportunities available to it at the different stages of this case. Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has already attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice.[25]