Archive for August, 2016


CASE 2016-0055: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGR-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS INC. VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) ET AL. (G.R. NO. 209271, 26 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (NOTE: THERE ARE OTHER COMPANION CASES) (SUBJECT/S: SC RESOLVES ONLY ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES; EXCEPTIONS – RESOLUTION OF CASES RENDERED MOOT) (BRIEF TITLE: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
August 31, 2016

CASE 2016-0055: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGR-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS INC. VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) ET AL. (G.R. NO. 209271, 26 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (NOTE: THERE ARE OTHER COMPANION CASES) (SUBJECT/S: SC RESOLVES ONLY ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES; EXCEPTIONS –  RESOLUTION OF CASES RENDERED MOOT) (BRIEF TITLE: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED. The Decision dated December 8, 2015 of the Court, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 17, 2013 and the Resolution dat.ed September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013, is hereby SET ASIDE for the reasons above-explained. A new one is ENTERED DISJ\r1ISSIN G the Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), JUagsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad’ng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of mootness.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE?

 

IT INVOLVES NINE (9) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION1 ASSAILING THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 2015 OF THE COURT (DECEMBER 8, 2015 DECISION), WHICH UPHELD WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION3 DATED MAY 17, 2013 AND THE RESOLUTION4 DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 00013.

 

HOW DID THE SC RESOLVE THESE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION?

 

SC GRANTED THESE MOTIONS.

 

ON WHAT MAIN GROUND?

 

ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS.

 

THESE CASES STEMMED FROM RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN. THE WRIT BEING SOUGHT WAS MOOTED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE BIOSAFETY PERMITS ISSUED BY BUREAU OF PLANT INDISTRY  AND THE COMPLETION OF THE BT TALONG FIELD TRIALS. THERE IS NO MORE FIELD TEST TO ENJOIN.

 

ALSO, THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE GAINED BY RESOLVING RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN.

 

WHAT CONTROVERSIES CAN THE COURT ADJUDICATE?

 

AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY ACTUAL, ONGOING CONTROVERSIES. THIS RULE IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS.


WHEN A CASE IS MOOT, IT BECOMES NON-JUSTICIABLE.

 

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE?

 

YES.

 

FIRST, WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;

 

SECOND, WHEN THE EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE SITUATION AND THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST ARE INVOLVED;

 

THIRD, WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RAISED REQUIRES FORMULATION OF CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE PUBLIC;

 

AND FOURTH, WHEN THE CASE IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0055-INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment

SAMPLE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

Filed under: FORMS — Leave a comment

SAMPLE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

MAKATI CITY                                   ) SS.

 

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

 

I, JUAN Z. REYES, of legal age, and with address at XXXXXXXXXX, under oath, state:

 

     1. THAT  I have a Citibank Mastercard bearing No. _____ and expiring  on _______ .

 

  1. THAT on XXXXX at around 5:30 PM I boarded a bus bound for Quezon City;

 

  1. THAT after I got off at corner EDSA and Quezon Avenue, I discovered that my wallet containing my aforesaid Citibank Mastercard was gone;

                                                                  

  1. THAT I exerted diligent effort to locate the same but to no avail and thus I consider my Citibank Mastercard as lost and can no longer be found;

 

  1. THAT I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to use the same for whatever legal purpose it may serve.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this XXXXXXX at Makati City.

 

 

JUAN Z. REYES

Affiant

 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this XXXXXX at Makati City, Affiant exhibiting to me his competent proof of identity bearing his picture and signature as described below:


NAME TYPE OF ID. NUMBER DATE AND PLACE OF ISSUANCE/ EXPIRY DATE.
 

JUAN Z.

REYES

 

 PASSPORT  XXXX  

ISSUED ON XXXX AT XXXX AND EXPIRING ON XXXX.

 


Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;

Book No. _____;

Series of ______.

Comment

CASE 2016-0000: MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, -VERSUS- FELICIDAD VILLAMENA, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 192477, 27 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (REMEDY WHEN ONE IS DECLARED IN DEFAULT; DEFAULT JUDGMENT) (BRIEF TITLE: MONARCO VS. VILLAMENA)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — 3 Comments
August 28, 2016

CASE 2016-0000: MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, -versus- FELICIDAD VILLAMENA, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 192477, 27 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (REMEDY WHEN ONE IS DECLARED IN DEFAULT; DEFAULT JUDGMENT)  (BRIEF TITLE: MONARCO VS. VILLAMENA)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

 “WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on January 14, 2010; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

GIST OF FACTS:

 

DEFENDANT FILED AN ANSWER BUT LATE. RTC DECLARED THEM IN DEFAULT. DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT. RTC RENDERED DEFAULT JUDGMENT. DEFENDANT APPEALED RTC’S ORDER DECLARING THEM IN DEFAULT AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. CA AFFIRMED. DEFENDANT FILED PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT QUESTIONING CA DECISION. SC AFFIRMED CA DECISION.

 

PETITIONER CLAIM THAT THE PERIOD TO FILE AN ANSWER HAS NOT YET COMMENCED BECAUSE OF THE DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS. IS HIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO. BY FILING AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, PETITIONER IS DEEMED AWARE OF THE COMPLAINT FILED.

 

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT BECAME VESTED IN THE RTC AND CURED ANY DEFECT IN THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS.

 

WHAT OTHER ACT OR OMMISSION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION DENYING THE PETITION?

 

DEFENDANT FAILED TO FILE A MOTION TO LIFT THE ORDER OF DEFAULT.

 

BUT DEFENDANT FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DECLARE IT IN DEFAULT. IS THIS NOT SUFFICIENT?

 

NO. THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED A MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT AS PROVIDED IN THE RULES.

 

THE COURT NOTED THAT IN THEIR OPPOSITION, DEFENDANT TENDERED NO SUBSTANTIATION OF WHAT WAS ITS MERITORIOUS DEFENSE, AND DID NOT SPECIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE THAT PREVENTED THE FILING OF THE ANSWER BEFORE THE ORDER OF DEFAULT ISSUED -THE CRUCIAL ELEMENTS IN ASKING THE COURT TO CONSIDER VACATING ITS OWN ORDER.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0054-MOMARCO 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

Comment