Archive for October, 2022


SC CASE 2022-0052: LUIS RAMON P. LORENZO VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL – ARTHUR CUA YAP VS. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL (G.R. NOS 242506-10 AND G.R. NOS 242590-94. 14 SEPT 2022, CAGUIOA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL DUE TO VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL) (BRIEF TITLE: LORENZO VS SANDIGAN ET AL.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
October 22, 2022

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

NOTE THAT THE CASES AGAINST PETITIONERS WERE DISMISSED FOR VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.

EVIDENCE ALIUNDE PRESENTED DURING HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH MUST BE CONSIDERED.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

scd-2022-0052-luis-ramon-p.-lorenzo-vs.-hon.-sandiganbayan-et-al-arthur-cua-yap-vs.-sandiganbayan-et-alDownload

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

Comment

SC CASE 2022-0051: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. ROSELLE C. ANNANG (G.R. NO. 225895, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022, HERNANDO J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CSC VS ANNANG)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — Leave a comment
October 21, 2022

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

scd-2022-0051-civil-service-commission-vs.-roselle-c.-annangDownload

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

Comment

SC CASE 2022-0050: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. SPOUSES NESTOR AND FELICIDAD VICTOR AND SPOUSES REYNALDO AND GAVINA VICTOR (G.R. NO. 207377, 27 JULY 2022, HERNANDO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL) (BRIEF TITLE: PNB VS SPOUSES VICTOR ET AL)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
October 16, 2022

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PNB ARGUES THAT THEIR COUNSELS WERE NEGLIGENT AND AS A RESULT THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR DAY IN COURT. SUPREME COURT SAID THE NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL MUST BE GROSS. SUCH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. AS A GENERAL RULE NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT. THERE IS AN EXCEPTION: WHEN THE NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL IS SO GROSS THAT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE GUARDED AGAINST IT.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

scd-2022-0050-philippine-national-bank-vs.-spouses-nestor-and-felicidad-victor-and-spouses-reynaldo-and-gavina-victorDownload

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

Comment