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.
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.
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 »
In Ortigas v. Court of Appeals, a mortgage encumbrance was executed in favor of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest. However, the property was foreclosed and sold on a public auction without their participation. A TCT was issued in favor of the highest bidder, Carredo, upon which a memorandum of encumbrance was annotated. Upon Carredo’s petition, the trial court granted the cancellation of the said memorandum of encumbrance. The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for the annulment of judgement is proper to challenge the aforementioned trial court decision.
