Whatever Infos

Posts

Showing posts from July, 2013

Oposa vs. Factoran

Oposa vs. Factoran GR No. 1010183, July 30, 1993 FACTS: The principal petitioners are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. Oposa vs. Factoran The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." Oposa vs. Factoran This instant petition was filed to seek for the cancelat

Senate vs. Ermita

Senate vs. Ermita GR No. 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: On September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear on September 29, 2005 as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group (hereinafter North Rail Project). Senate vs. Ermita The public hearing was sparked by a privilege speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the North Rail Project. The Senate Committee on National Defense and Security likewise issued invitations to various officials of the AFP for them to attend as resource persons in a public hearing scheduled on September 28, 2005. Senate vs. Ermita The AFP Chief of Staff, General Generoso S. Senga was also invited on that scheduled hearing

Almeda vs. Villaluz

Almeda vs. Villaluz GR No. L-31665, August 6, 1975 FACTS: Petitioner Leonardo Almeda (alias Nardong Paa) was charged, together with five others, with the crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle. The amount of the bond recommended for the provisional release of Almeda was P15,000, and this was approved by the respondent judge with a direction that it be posted entirely in cash. Almeda vs. Villaluz Almeda asked the trial court to allow him to post a surety bond in lieu of the cash bond required of him. This request was denied, and so was an oral motion for reconsideration, on the ground that the amended information imputed habitual delinquency and recidivism on the part of Almeda. Almeda vs. Villaluz At the same hearing, the respondent city fiscal, thru his assistant, reiterated his oral motion made at a previous hearing for amendment of the information so as to include allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency in the particular case of Almeda. Th

Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma

Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma AM No. RTJ-94-1183, February 6, 1995 FACTS: This administrative case arose from an anonymous letter-complaint. Alfredo Gatus y Tiamzon was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in five (5) separate Information, before the sala of respondent Judge Elma. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma In the Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, no bail bond was recommended. Accused Gatus filed a motion to fix his bail at P60,000.00. Respondent judge, instead of setting the application for hearing, directed the prosecution to file its Comment or Opposition to accused's Motion to Fix Bail. Concerned Citizens vs. Judge Elma The prosecution submitted its Comment, to wit: That based on the record of this case, it appears that a preliminary investigation was conducted; That the investigating prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation (did not) recommend (any) bail for said offense; That unders

Feliciano vs. Pasicolan

Feliciano vs. Pasicolan GR No. L-14657, July 31, 1961 FACTS: Pablo Feliciano, was one of the eighteen persons charged with the crime of kidnapping with murder. Upon learning of the filing of said information and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued, the petitioner went into hiding. However, Attorney Filemon Cajator, at the instance of the petitioner's wife, filed in the case a motion asking that the Court fix at P10,000.00 the amount of the bond for petitioner's release pending trial. Feliciano vs. Pasicolan The Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga opposed this motion, on the ground that the filing thereof was premature as the petitioner had not yet been arrested. the respondent Judge dismissed petitioner's motion, on the ground that "pending his arrest or surrender, Pablo Feliciano has not the right to ask this court to admit him to bail." Hence, the instant proceeding. Read: Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs.

Tucay vs. Domagas

Tucay vs. Domagas AM No. RTJ-95-1286, March 2 1995 FACTS: Ludovico Ellamil, Bernardo Ellamil and Melchor Ellamil are accused of murder. Teresita Tucay, the wife of the victim, is the complainant. A petition for bail was filed on behalf of the accused Bernardo Ellamil. Tucay vs. Domagas The petition was denied by respondent judge on the ground that it did not bear the conformity of the provincial prosecutor. A second petition for bail was filed by the accused with the prayer that he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P50,000.00. Tucay vs. Domagas This time, the petition contained the notation "No objection" of Provincial Prosecutor Jose Antonio Guillermo. Without holding a hearing to determine whether the evidence of the prosecution was strong, respondent judge issued an order on the same day, in which he granted bail and directed the release of accused from detention. Tucay vs. Domagas Read: Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Re

Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia

Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia GR NO. 153675, APRIL 19, 2007 FACTS: Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. The RTC issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia

Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu

Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu GR No. L-31635, August 31 1971, 40 SCRA 464 FACTS: Petitioners as plaintiffs in a complaint filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot, alleging that in 1927 the National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it and used it for the widening of the Gorordo Avenue, a national road, Cebu City, without paying just compensation and without any agreement, either written or verbal. Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its possession. Read: Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano It was further alleged that the appraisal committee of the City of Cebu approved Resolution No. 90, appraising the reasonable and just price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per squ

Republic vs. Villasor

Republic vs. Villasor GR No. L-30671, November 28 1973, 54 SCRA 84 FACTS: On July 3, 1961, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings No. 2156-R in favor of respondents P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and International Construction Corporation, and against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award subject of Special Proceedings. On June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, issued an Order declaring the aforestated decision of July 3, 1961 final and executory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City [as well as] Manila to execute the said decision. Republic vs. Villasor Pursuant to the said Order, the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution was issued. On the strength of the afore-mentioned Alias Writ of Execution, the respondent Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served notices of garnishment with several Banks, specially on the `monies due the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the form of deposits, sufficient to

Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands

Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands GR No. L-11154, March 21 1916, 34 Phil. 311 FACTS: Plaintiff was involved in an accident concerning him and a General Hospital ambulance resulting in him being incapacitated. He sustained severe injuries rendering him unable to return to work. Act No. 2457 was enacted in his favor which reads: "An act authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said suit. Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands "Whereas a claim has been filed against the Government of the Philippine Islands by Mr. E. Merritt, of Manila, for damages resulting from a collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital on March twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; "Whereas it is not known who is responsible for the accident nor is it possible to determine the amount of damages, if

Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano

Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano GR No. 70853, March 12 1987, 148 SCRA 424 FACTS: Respondent Feliciano filed a complaint with the then CFI of Camarines Sur against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, consisting of four (4) lots situated in the Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Plaintiff alleged: that he bought the property in question from Victor Gardiola by virtue of a Contract of Sale followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale; that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado whose title to the said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that upon plaintiff's purchase of the property, he took actual possession of the same, introduced various improvements therein and caused it to be surveyed in July 1952, which survey was approved by the Direc

Wylie vs. Rarang

Wylie vs. Rarang GR No. 74135, May 28 1992, 209 SCRA 357 FACTS: Petitioner M. H. Wylie was the assistant administrative officer while petitioner Capt. James Williams was the commanding officer of the U. S. Naval Base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City. Private respondent Aurora I. Rarang was an employee in the office of the Provost Marshal assigned as merchandise control guard. Wylie vs. Rarang M. H. Wylie, in his capacity as assistant administrative officer of the U.S. Naval Station supervised the publication of the "Plan of the Day" (POD) which was published daily by the US Naval Base station. The POD featured important announcements, necessary precautions, and general matters of interest to military personnel. Wylie vs. Rarang One of the regular features of the POD was the "action line inquiry." Read: Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals On February 3, 1978, the POD made a publication, under the "NAV