Doctrines Finals Remidial Law Review Finals

7/27/2019 Doctrines Finals Remidial Law Review Finals

1/5

Banez vs Banez: Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances

demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the

writ.

Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution

pending appeal. To do so would make execution routinary, the rule rather than theexception.

Fajardo vs Quitlag: As frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs must always

strive to maintain public trust in the performance of their duties. Having the

forsworn duty to uphold the majesty of the law, they must see to it that the final

stage in the litigation process is carried out without unnecessary delay

Santos vs Panulaya: Willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary

dismissal of the case, and constitutes direct contempt of court.

mere filing of the notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction

over the case and to resolve pending incidents, i.e., motion for execution pending

appeal

To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would

bring back the ghost of the "grab-the-proclamation-prolong the protest" techniques

RCBC vs Magwin

To continue hereafter with the resolution of petitioner's complaint without the

usual procedure for the re-filing thereof, we will save the court a quo invaluable

time and other resources far outweighing the docket fees that petitioner would beforfeiting should we rule otherwise.

City Of Iligan vs. Principal Management Group, INC. (PMGI)

The ascertainment of good reasons for execution pending appeal lies within the

sound discretion of the trial court. Normally, its finding will not be disturbed by a

reviewing court, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.

When the period of appeal has not yet expired, the execution of a judgment should

not be allowed except if, in the courts discretion, there are good reasons therefor

Villaruel Jr. vs. Fernando a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutableand unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct

clerical errors or mistakes

Spouses Morta vs Judge Bagagnan: justice delayed is justice denied

The unexplained failure of judges to decide cases and resolve motions and incidents

within the reglementary period of 90 days, which is fixed by the Constitution and

the law, renders them administratively liable.


2/5

Delay reinforces in the mind of litigants the impression that the wheels of justice

grind ever so slowly

Spouses Serrano vs Ca and Heirs Of Geli:

DArmoured vs Oropia:

an order of execution of a final and executory judgment, as in this case, is notappealable, otherwise, there would be no end to litigation

exemption (from execution) pertains only to natural persons and not to juridical

entities

Perez vs CA:

A judgment or order is on the merits of the case when it determines the rights and

liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or

issues presented for trial.

absolute identity of parties is not a condition sine qua non for the application of resjudicata. It is sufficient that there is a shared identity of interest.

Redemption is inconsistent with the claim of invalidity of the sale. Redemption isan implied admission of the regularity of the sale and would estop therespondents from later impugning its validity on that ground

Section 49(b) , Rule 39 enunciates the first concept ofresjudicata,known as bar by prior judgment or estoppel by judgment,which refers to a theory or matter that has been definitely and finallysettled on its merits by a court of competent jurisdiction without fraud or

collusion.

Section 49(c) of Rule 39 enumerates the concept of conclusiveness ofjudgment/collateral estoppel. This applies where, between the first casewherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment isinvolved, there is no identity of causes of action

Case law has it that where a right, question or fact is distinctly put in issue anddirectly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a first case, betweenthe same parties or their privies, the former adjudication of that fact, right orquestion is binding on the parties or their privies in a second suit irrespective of

whether the causes of action are the same

A plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the issues existingwhen the suit began. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal

Panotes vs. CTDC:

An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing

the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage

of five years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party.


3/5

strangers to a case, like CTDC, are not bound by the judgment rendered by a court.

Stronghold vs Judge Felix and Garon:

the authority to determine whether an appeal is dilatory lies with the appellate

court. The trial courts assumption that the appeal is dilatory prematurely judgesthe merits of the main case on appeal.

The mere filing of a bond by a successful party is not a good reason to justify

execution pending appeal as a combination of circumstances is the dominant

consideration which impels the grant of immediate execution. The bond is only an

additional factor for the protection of the defendants creditor.

Heirs of Spouses Reterta vs Spouses Mortes:

The fact that the order granting the motion to dismiss

was a final order for thereby completely disposing of the

case, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do in the

action, truly called for an appeal, instead of certiorari,

as the correct remedy.

A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a

new issue, or presenting new evidence, or changing the

theory of the case, but is only seeking a reconsideration

of the judgment or final order based on the same issues,

contentions, and evidence

By denying a motion for reconsideration, or by granting

it only partially, therefore, a trial court finds no reason

either to reverse or to modify its judgment or final order,

and leaves the judgment or final order to stand. The

remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the

course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself.


4/5

It is inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal

remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the

writ, that must usually determine the propriety of

certiorari

that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the less

speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order

annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure

of the trial court to comply with theRules of Court

The wide breadth and range of the discretion of thecourt are such that authority is not wanting to show that

certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition

ormandamus, and that in the exercise of superintending

control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be

guided by all the circumstances of each particular case

asthe ends of justice may require. Thus, the writ will

be granted whenever necessary to prevent a substantialwrong or to do substantial justice.

PBB vs Chua:

When the pleadings on file show that there are no

genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party

to obtain immediate relief by way of summaryjudgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the

court is allowed to decide the case summarily by

applying the law to the material facts.


5/5

partial summary judgment was never intended to

be considered a final judgment, as it does not [put]

an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff

either has or has not entitled himself to recover theremedy he sues for. The Rules provide for a partial

summary judgment as a means to simplify the trial

process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on

the assailed facts, considering as established those facts

which are not in dispute.

partial summary judgment envisioned by theRules is an interlocutory order that was never meant

to be treated separately from the main case.A partial summary judgment is not a final or

appealable judgment.

The propriety of the summary judgment may be

corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a

petition for certiorari, since it imputes error on the

lower courts judgment.

Documents

Doctrines Finals Remidial Law Review Finals