The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision allowing David Lim to amend his petition orally and multiple times to accurately reflect the conjugal assets. The Court emphasized liberal construction of procedural rules to serve justice and clarified that oral motions may be valid if due process is observed during hearings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Department of Science and Technology’s (DOST) petition challenging the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of step increment differentials paid alongside longevity pay to 101 employees from 2005 to 2008. The Court ruled the petition was filed too late, as the COA’s decision had become final years earlier. Additionally, only those directly held liable under the Notice of Disallowance had the legal standing to appeal. This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and clarifies that government personnel cannot receive both step increments and longevity pay simultaneously.
The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of graft and malversation charges against former Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy Tumang and businessman William Colis. The Court found that the Office of the Ombudsman violated their right to a speedy disposition of cases due to inordinate delays in the preliminary investigation and filing of charges.
In 1987, Leoncio Melocoton married Jennifer Pring while still married to Susan Jimenez. In 2005, he sought to nullify his marriage to Pring, claiming bigamy. The Supreme Court upheld the marriage’s validity, ruling that Melocoton failed to prove his prior marriage was still subsisting during his marriage to Pring.
In Empuerto v. Cabrillos, the Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC’s) order containing certain terms compromise agreement between the parents of the child as to the latter’s custody cannot be considered a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody given that the father, Jeffrey, was not served with summons nor given the opportunity to file an answer. The Court remanded the case to the RTC for trial.
An essential requisite of consolidation is that the actions to be consolidated are pending before the court. A case that was already resolved may no longer be consolidated.
“Evident miscalculation of figures” under Section 25 (a), RA 876 means obvious mathematical errors relating to miscalculation that appear on the face of the award. It does not pertain to any allegation of fraud, corruption, or grave abuse. It is limited to clerical errors and honest mistakes and is, thus, correctible insofar as they do not affect the merits of the controversy.
In Tsutsumi v. Republic, the Supreme Court recognized a Japanese divorce between a Filipino and Japanese citizen. The Court accepted authenticated documents as sufficient proof of divorce and Japanese law, emphasizing procedural flexibility to ensure substantial justice in family matters.
In AAA261422 v. XXX261422, the Supreme Court entertained the petition for review on certiorari filed by the private complainant assailing the criminal aspect of the case, even without conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). It found that the guideline laid down in Austria v. AAA and BBB requiring such conformity does not apply to the present case which was resolved prior to Austria’s finality. The Supreme Court further found that entertaining the abovementioned petition will not put the accused in double jeopardy. It found that the decision of the trial court acquitting the accused was void for lack of jurisdiction, having been rendered in violation of the People’s right to due process. Finally, the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of three counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
In Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused is disqualified from plea bargaining for illegal sale of shabu if the crime involves 1.00 grams or above of the said dangerous drugs. However, failure to raise such disqualification in the pleadings before the trial and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, may be deemed a waiver of such disqualification.
The Supreme Court found that Walter Manuel Prescot is a natural-born Philippine citizen, hence, he may not be legally deported. The Court found that the Oath of Allegiance executed by Prescott in 2008 when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 constitutes substantial compliance with the formal election requirements under Commonwealth Act No. 625. Further, his consistent and deliberate actions throughout his entire life evinced his loyalty, love, and fealty to the Philippines.
Prescott v. Bureau of Immigration [December 5, 2023] Read More »
