Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUTGARDA CRUZ v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 213525 2015-01-27	FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. COA PROPER BERSAMIN, J.
Section 13 thus requires that if the service is done by registered mail, proof of service shall consist of the affidavit of the person effecting the mailing and the registry receipt, both of which must be appended to the paper being served. A compliance with the rule is mandatory, such that there is no proof of service if either or both are not submitted.[13]
	GR No. 175891 2011-01-12	REPUBLIC v. RESINS CARPIO, J.
OSG's denial of receipt of the 17 March 1993 Judgment required Resins, Inc. to show proof that the Judgment was sent through registered mail and that it was received by the Republic. While the certification from the RTC Clerk of Court and photocopies of the return slips prove that the Republic was served the judgment, it does not follow that the Republic, via the OSG, actually received the judgment. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves, they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.[29] Resins, Inc. also did not show a certification from the postmaster that notice was duly issued and delivered to the OSG such that service by registered mail may be deemed completed. It cannot be stressed enough that "it is the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing, which proves service made through registered mail."[30] Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service.[31]
	GR No. 178266 2008-07-21	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL NACHURA, J.
The three important requisites in order that a court may acquire criminal jurisdiction are (1) the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed; and (3) the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused.[15]
	GR No. 170583 2007-09-12	ERNESTO M. FULLERO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There are three important requisites which must be present before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal cases. First, the court must have jurisdiction over the offense or the subject matter. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed. And third, the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused.[67] There is no dispute that the Legazpi City RTC has jurisdiction over the offense and over the person of petitioner. It is the territorial jurisdiction of the Legazpi City RTC which the petitioner impugns.
	GR No. 155025 2007-08-24	COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. ATTY. ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
There is no question that petitioner herein was remiss in complying with the foregoing Rule. In Cruz v. Court of Appeals,[4] we ruled that with respect to motions, proof of service is a mandatory requirement. We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with more reason to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that the petition shall be filed "together with proof of service thereof." We agree with the Court of Appeals that the lack of proof of service is a fatal defect. The utter disregard of the Rule cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.
	GR NO. 165496 2007-02-12	HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI CARPIO MORALES, J.
Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is terminated as far as he is concerned. The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused.[28]
	GR NO. 147212 2006-03-24	GOVERNMENT OF PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIANO ABALLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing.[15] Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service.[16] In Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara v. Gedorio, Jr., the Court held that:When service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. In civil cases, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 7 of Rule 13. In the present case, as proof that petitioners were served with copies of the omnibus motion submitting an inventory of the estate of deceased Allers, respondent Bolaño presented photocopies of the motion with a certification by counsel that service was made by registered mail, together with the registry receipts. While the affidavit and the registry receipts proved that petitioners were served with copies of the motion, it does not follow, however, that petitioners in fact received the motion. Respondent Bolaño failed to present the registry return cards showing that petitioners actually received the motion. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not prove themselves, they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters. Respondent also failed to present a certification of the postmaster that notice was duly issued and delivered to petitioners such that service by registered mail may be deemed completed.[17]
	AM NO. RTJ-04-1886 2005-05-16	ALFREDO G. BOISER v. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also, without proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance.[16] The rule mandates that the same shall not be acted upon by the court. Proof of service is mandatory.[17]
	GR NO. 148470 2005-04-29	LOPEZ DELA ROSA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not subscribe to their lame excuses. The fact that the alleged motion for reconsideration did not contain the official stamp of the Docket and Record Section of the NLRC is sufficient indication that same was never filed. Even assuming arguendo that the motion was wrongly addressed to the Second Division of the NLRC, the Docket and Record Section will still put a stamp as to when it received the same. It is simply incredible, assuming that a motion has indeed been filed, that no one will acknowledge receipt thereof by putting a stamp thereon. Moreover, if a motion for reconsideration was truly filed by petitioners, why did private complainant never receive a copy of the same? Failure to furnish the adverse party a copy of the motion for reconsideration is tantamount to non-filing, because furnishing the adverse party is a requirement before the motion can be entertained under the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.[33] Service of a copy of the motion on the opposing lawyers and an indication of the time and place of hearing are mandatory requirements.[34] Proof of service is mandatory. Without such proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance.[35]