execution of the certification against forum shopping by the attorney-in-fact is not a violation of the requirement that the parties must personally sign the same: (MONASTERIO-PE VS. TONG, PERALTA, J.).PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused. It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is, injury that is actual, substantial, anddemonstrable. (HEIRS OF MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA,J).THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ENTERTAINED THE JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE AT LARGE. IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY ACCUSED who was present during the promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA, J.).Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. (Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133775, January 20, 2000)A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) The legal right of the plaintiff; (b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and (c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina [2012], PERALTA, J.)The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as summarized in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the Land Bank is charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition arrangement. Thus, in determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors: (1) the acquisition cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land, if any.(Land Bank vs. Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).

Quo Warranto: A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is brought against the person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office. It may be brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person claiming to be entitled to such office. In quo warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his name must prove that he is entitled to the subject public office. In other words, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested position. Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed. It is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office (Arquero vs. CA [2011], PERALTA, J).

Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case: In People v. Hernandez, the Court held that delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders must be read in harmony with Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that the [p]etition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. The trial court was then correct and acting well within its discretion when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for postponement mainly because of the pendency of their petition for transfer of venue (MARI & PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011], PERALTA, J).

The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated. (VILLAREAL VS. ALIGA, 2014, PERALTA, J.)when a complaint is dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the plaintiff, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no need to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping in a subsequent re-filed complaint the fact of the prior filing and dismissal of the former complaint. (BENEDICTO vs. LACSON [2010], PERALTA, J.).

In criminal cases, the grant of demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (PEOPLE vs. ATIENZA, 2012, PERALTA, J.).Forum-shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). (BORRA vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J.)JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER:It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. (MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM VS. CULLEN [2013], PERALTA,J.)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the present case, the right of respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from the service meted on government employees or officials is immediately executory in accordance with the valid rule of execution pending appeal uniformly observed in administrative disciplinary cases. (OMBUDSMAN vs. DE CHAVEZ [2013], PERALTA, J).

the Supreme Court now has the sole authority to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. (GSIS vs. HEIRS OF CABALLERO [2010], PERALTA, J.).In determining whether petitioner was deprived of this right, the factors to consider and balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. (Mari vs. Gonzales, 2011 Peralta, J.)

MOTION TO DISCHARGE A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT: UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE CONTRACT AND THE VERACITY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALLEGATION OF FRAUD, PERTAIN TO THE MERITS OF THE MAIN ACTION. HENCE, THESE ISSUES ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN UP IN RESOLVING THE MOTION TO DISCHARGE, LEST WE RUN THE RISK OF DECIDING OR PREJUDGING THE MAIN CASE AND FORCE A TRIAL ON THE MERITS AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN VS. HON. DUMDUM, JR., [2010], PERALTA, J).

Instances when presence of accused is required by law: Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived (PEOPLE vs. DE GRANO, 2009, Peralta, J.).

Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash The above general rule, however admits of several exceptions, one of which is when the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies. (JAVIER VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 2009, PERALTA, J.).The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. (OMBUDSMAN vS. VENTURA, 2009, Peralta, J.)

QUAHAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT: In view of the withdrawal of the Information for Robbery, the quashal of the subject search warrants and the determination of the issue of whether or not there was probable cause warranting the issuanceby the RTC of the said search warrants for respondents alleged acts of robbery has been rendered moot and academic. (TAN vs. SY TIONG GUE, 2010, PERALTA,J.).

Plain view: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. (MICLAT VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT SEIZURE MUST BE CARRIED OUT WITH A JUDICIAL WARRANT; OTHERWISE, IT BECOMES UNREASONABLE AND ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREFROM SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).

COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT BEFORE POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY CARRY OUT A BUY-BUST OPERATION. A BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT INVALIDATED BY MERE NON-COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA. (PEOPLE VS. MANTALABA [2011], PERALTA, J.). GENERALLY, A CRIMINAL CASE HAS TWO ASPECTS, THE CIVIL AND THE CRIMINAL:

The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant, is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1(a)). The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits. Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to him. But, when the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since liability under such an action can be determined based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability. The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest sense, is to determine the penal liability of the accused for having outraged the state with his crime and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense, the parties to the action are the People of the Philippines and the accused. The offended party is regarded merely as a witness for the state. Also in this wise, only the state, through its appellate counsel, the OSG, has the sole right and authority to institute proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court. (BURGOS vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711)FORECLOSURE AND WRIT OF POSSESSION:

It is settled that questions regarding the validity of a mortgage or its foreclosure as well as the sale of the property covered by the mortgage cannot be raised as ground to deny the issuance of a writ of possession. Any such questions must be determined in a subsequent proceeding (Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287) as in fact, herein respondents commenced an action for Annulment of Certificate of Sale, Promissory Note and Deed of Mortgage. x x x x Since respondents failed to redeem the mortgage within the reglementary period, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right and the issuance thereof is merely a ministerial function (F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No. 78714, November 21 1990, 191 SCRA 516, 523). The judge to whom an application for a writ of possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure. Until the foreclosure sale is annulled, the issuance of the writ of possession is ministerial (Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287). In fact, even during the period of redemption, the purchaser is entitled as of right to a writ of possession provided a bond is posted to indemnify the debtor in case the foreclosure sale is shown to have been conducted without complying with the requirements of the law. More so when, as in the pres ent case, the redemption period has expired and ownership is vested in the purchaser. x x x The defaulting mortgagor is not without any expedient remedy, however. For under Section 8 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, it can file with the court which issues the writ of possession a petition for cancellation of the writ within 30 days after the purchaser-mortgagee was given possession. IN FINE, it would be a grievous error for QC-RTC, Branch 77 to deny petitioners motion for the issuance of a writ of possession (PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. JAMES NG, et al. G.R. No.187556, May 5, 2010, First Division, Carpio Morales, J.).CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE:

liabilities of the deceased arising from quasi-contracts should be filed as claims in the settlement of his estate, as provided in Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. x x x x We read with approval the CAs use of the statutory construction principle of lex specialis derogat generali, leading to the conclusion that the specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court; the settlement of the estate of deceased persons (where claims against the deceased should be filed) is primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings, while the rules provided for ordinary claims, including Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Absolute Management Corporation, G.R. No. 170498, January 9, 2013, Brion, J.)DIRECT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE TITLE:

The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof (Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando Pampanga vs. Fernando Soriano Jr., et al., G.R. No. 153829, August 17, 2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.).RES JUDICATA:

For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the following requisites must be present: (1) the judgment or order sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the first case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. As to the fourth element, it is important to note that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: first, bar by prior judgment which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the Rules of Court and second, conclusiveness of judgment which is provided in Section 47 (c) of the same Rule. There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. On the other hand, under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. SIA, G.R. No. 165836, February 18, 2009, Second Division, Quisumbing, J.).INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED:

1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution; 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. (GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNIONVS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL:

The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record (FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET AL., G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:

To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule, to wit: 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void; 4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are present in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent not having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case against petitioners, the dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS vs. ORDA, G.R. No. 189402, May 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:

The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.Clearly, the amount involved P13, 300.00 assessed value of the subject property as declared by respondents, is immaterial for purposes of the RTCs appellate jurisdiction.All cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. (Sec. 22 of B.P. 129; Federica M. Serrano vs. Spouses Anselmo and Carmelita Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, November 10, 2006, Tinga,J.)A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.

The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC.,G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA,J.).DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT:

The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. (SANTIAGO CUA, JR., et. al. vs. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN et. al., G.R. No. 181455-56, December 4, 2009, CHICO-NAZARIO,J.).WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING:

Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). x x x If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. (CHUA vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY:

An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. (Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007, Rodolfo San Luis vs. Felicidad Sagalongos, G.R. No. 134029, February 6, 2007, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:

It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same case in which it is offered, no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made. The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not. (Republic of the Philippine vs. Estate of Hans Menzi, G.R. No. I83446, November 13, 2012, Perez, J.)WRITING OR DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVEN AS PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL RECORD OF A FOREIGN COUNTRTY:

As held in Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, (2001), divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. (Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan-Lee, G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012, Sereno, J.).MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the judgment is not yet final. (Nemia Castro vs. Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra, G.R. No. 192737, April 25, 2012, MENDOZA, J.).HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED:

Well-entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or signatures.This is so since under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, because he has seen the person write; or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or has been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.Moreover, the opinion of a non-expert witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the handwriting or signature of a person with which he has sufficient familiarity. (Fullero vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, Chico-Nazario,J.)REFERRAL OF SOME CASES FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

The following are under the mandatory coverage for court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR): a) all civil cases and the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, including the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22, except those which by law may not be compromised; b) special proceedings for the settlement of estates; c) all civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by the Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; d) the civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code; e) the civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended party is a private person; f) the civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel; g) All civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; h) all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (2) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; i) all civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; and j) all habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (A-114. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA).EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION:

Normally, execution will issue as a matter of right only (a) when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin. Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule. As such exception, the courts discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity (ROSARIO T. FLORENDO vs. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP., G.R. No. 167976, January 20, 2010, ABAD, J.).NOTICE OF DISMISSAL:

The trial court has no discretion or option to deny a notice of dismissal since dismissal by the plaintiff under Section 1, Rule 17 is a matter of right. (O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corporation vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 135803, March 28, 2006, Tinga,J.)OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS:

The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer. (Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138696, July 7, 2010).A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FIULING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI:

Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, G.R. No. 169241, May, 2 2006, 488 SCRA 574, 580). Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case (Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of Primitivo Hernaez, 466 SCRA 120, 127 (2005); National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 58, 64 (2001). The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC.,G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA,J.).COURTS ARE TASKED TO DETERMINE NOTHING MORE THAN THE EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF A WILL IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. DUE EXECUTION OF THE WILL OR ITS EXTRINSIC VALIDITY PERTAINS TO WHETHER THE TESTATOR, BEING OF SOUND MIND, FREELY EXECUTED THE WILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMALITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW:

The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval. x x x x An essential element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the testator or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly possessions upon his/her death. (Antonio B. Baltazar et al. vs. Lorenzo Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.).SANDIGANBAYAN:

Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure questions of law. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy (People vs. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714-20, August 15, 2003).POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING:

The DNA test availed of by a person already convicted under a final and executory judgment is termed "post-conviction" DNA testing. The Rules on DNA Evidence allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be available to (a) prosecution, or (b) to the person convicted by a final and executory judgment provided that the following requirements are met: (a) a biological sample exists; (b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing would probably result in the several of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 6, Rules on DNA Evidence). The remedy available to the convict if the result of the post-conviction DNA testing is favorable to him includes: (a) filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin; (b) the court shall conduct a hearing and in case the court finds that the petition is meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless his detention is justified for a lawful cause (Section 10, Rules on DNA Evidence).DEATH PENALTY OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

The provision provides that where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is made directly to this Court by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. On the other hand, a case where the penalty imposed is death will be automatically reviewed by the Court without a need for filing a notice of appeal. However, People vs. Mateo G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 modified these rules by providing an intermediate review of the cases by the CA where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death. Pursuant to Mateos ruling, the Court issued A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC 2004-10-12, amending the pertinent rules governing review of death penalty cases. Also affecting the rules on appeal is the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 29, 2006. Under Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the imposition of the death penalty is prohibited, and in lieu thereof, it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); or life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. Consequently, in the provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals, death penalty cases are no longer operational. It is a settled rule that substantiated factual findings of the appellate court, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties and may not be reviewed on appeal. (People vs. Abon G.R. No. 169245 February 15, 2008 Velasco, Jr., J.)PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:

A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. (JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL V. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL & PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172060, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, CARPIO, J.).PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT:

Agreements or admissions made during the pre-trial cannot be used against the accused unless they are reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel (Sec. 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court).LEGAL STANDING OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO SEEK REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF STRONG EVIDENCE OF GUILT:

Actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, are, as a rule summarily dismissed. Here, the question of granting bail to the accused is but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208 (2000), the Supreme Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it the trial court's order granting bail. But in that case, the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to disallow the appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG would "leave the private complainant without any recourse to rectify the public injustice." It is not the case here. The trial court took time to hear the parade of witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. (BURGOS vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711, February 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).CLAIM OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST THE ESTATE:

From an estate proceeding perspective, the Special Administrator's commission is no less a claim against the estate than a claim that third parties may make. Section 8, Rule 86 of the Rules recognizes this when it provides for "Claim of Executor or Administrator Against an Estate." Under Section 13 of the same Rule, the action of the court on a claim against the estate "is appealable as in ordinary cases." Hence, by the express terms of the Rules, the ruling on the extent of the Special Administrator's commission - effectively, a claim by the special administrator against the estate - is the lower court's last word on the matter and one that is appealable. (ATTY. GEORGE S. BRIONES vs. LILIA J. HENSON-CRUZ, RUBY J. HENSON, and ANTONIO J. HENSON, G.R. No. 159130, August 22, 2008, BRION, J.)APPEALS:

It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case that the appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned (MICHAEL SAN JUAN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 177191, MAY 30, 2011, NACHURA, J.)GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION:

Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The subject Resolutions having been issued in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the appellate court. (Marcelo G. Ganaden al. vs. Fermin P. Lanag, Sr., et al., G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11 June 1, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).DEMAND IS NOT REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF REPLEVIN ACTION:

For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do is to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules, which states:Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond: The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;(b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief;(c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and(d) The actual market value of the property.The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the action (emphjasis supplied). The Supreme Court see nothing in these provisions which requires the applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. More importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that a prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. Navarros position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is therefore totally unmeritorious. (ROGER V. NAVARRO, vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. No. 153788, November 27, 2009, BRION, J.).REQUISITES FOR INTERPLEADER:

1. The plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter or his claim thereto is not disputed;2. The parties to be interpleaded must have adverse or conflicting claims to the property in possession or custody of the plaintiff. 3. The subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same.BY ESCAPING PRISON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT IMPLIEDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL:

Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals, it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding, the escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital punishment.Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases. (People vs. Esparas, G.R. No. 120034, August 20, 1996). By escaping prison, accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal.(Peoplevs. Francisco Taruc, G.R. No. 185202, February 18, 2009, Chico-Nazario,J.)OBSCENE MATERIALS OR PORNOGRAPHIC FILES:

While it may be true that the criminal case for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was dismissed as there was no concrete and strong evidence pointing to them as the direct source of the subject pornographic materials, it cannot be used as basis to recover the confiscated hard disks. At the risk of being repetitious, it appearsundisputed that the seized computer units belonging to them contained obscene materials or pornographic files. Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of protection of their supposed property rights. (Nogales vs. People, G.R. No. 191080, November 21, 2011, Mendoza,J.)MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. Thus, the Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial, or when there exists newly discovered evidence. The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown. This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered (MANUEL YBIERNAS ET AL. VS. ESTER TANCO GABALDON ET AL., G.R. NO.178925, JUNE 1, 2011, NACHURA, J.).MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:

Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of the judgment of conviction may be filed within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period renders the subject decision final and executor (MAPAGAY vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).DEAD MANS STATUTE:

The Dead Mans Statute provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. But before this rule can be successfully invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that: 1.The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted; 2.The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3.The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound mind; and 4.His testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. Well entrenched is the rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of the estate that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to matters of fact occurring before the death of the deceased, said action not having been brought against but by the estate or representatives of the deceased. (Sunga-Chan vs.Chua, G.R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.).OBJECT EVIDENCE:

NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE: Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the physical evidence should prevail. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008, Austria-Martinez, J.).RULES DNA EVIDENCE:

DNA is an organic substance found in a persons cells which contains his or her genetic code.Except for identical twins, each persons DNA profile is distinct and unique. The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among others things, the following data:a) How the samples were collected; b) How they were handled; c) The possibility of contamination of the samples; d) The procedure followed in analyzing the samples; e) Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests; and f) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. (People vs. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656.May 9, 2002, Per Curiam).RECEIVERSHIP:

The purpose of a receivership is to protect and preserve the rights of the parties during the pendency of the main action. Receivership is also aimed at preservation of, and at making more secure, existing rights. It cannot be used as an instrument for the destruction of those rights.IN THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, THE SURVIVING SPOUSE IS PREFERRED OVER THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT:

When the law speaks of "next of kin", the reference is to those who are entitled, under the statute of distribution, to the decedents property; or one whose relationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate as distributed, or, in short, an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits. (Belen Sagad Angeles, vs. Aleli "Corazon" Angeles Maglaya, G.R. No. 153798 September 2, 2005, GARCIA, J.).HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST-CONVICTION REMEDY:

The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement or detention in which individuals are deprived of liberty. The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment.However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess. (Andal v. People, 307 SCRA 605 [1999]; Go vs. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005).