JLo Cases Flashcards
is motion for reconsideration required for the filing of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration for this Court to take cognizance of appeals through petitions for review on certiorari.[
SEC. 2. Time for filing; extension. - The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, OR of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.
” The use of the word “or” indicates an alternative or choice, as opposed to being mandatory. Verily, the petitioner has an option to file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or directly file an appeal or a petition for review to the appellate court without filing a motion for reconsideration,
When can a reviewing court delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned factual findings?
If the factual findings of the administrative agencies are in conflict with the appellate court, the Supreme Court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings.
In this case, the findings of the NLRC as to Zonio’s money claims are in conflict with the Labor Arbiter and the CA, then it justify this Court to review the factual issues raised by Zonio.
(Zonio vs. 1st Qunatum Leap)
How are the decisions of the NLRC reviewable by the CA?
the decisions of the NLRC are reviewable by the CA
only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
When the CA reviews an NLRC decision, it is limited to the question of whether the NLRC acted arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not entail looking into the correctness of the judgment of the NLRC on the merits.
What is the ground when the CA decision is brought to the Court through a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45?
when the CA decision is brought to the Court through a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, the question of law presented
to the Court is whether the CA correctly found that the NLRC acted with grave
abuse its discretion in rendering its judgment.
Is it necessary that sexual favors or advances are made to constitute an act of sexual harassment?
No. In the case of PAL vs, YANEZ (G.R. No. 214662), it is not necessary that sexual favors or advances are made to
constitute an act of sexual harassment.
It is enough that Y afiez’ s inappropriate
conduct towards Sarte on May 6, 2008, and in other instances, created a hostile
work environment and uneasy feeling upon Sarte, which affected her job.
What is the essence of due process?
The essence
of due process is simply an opportunity to explain one’s side or the chance to
seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. It safeguards not
the lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.
As long as the party was afforded the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, there is no denial of due process.
Since it was Yanez who
refused to attend the scheduled hearings, he cannot, later on, complain that he
was unduly silenced.
(PAL vs, YANEZ G.R. No. 214662)
When can the Court resort to circumstantial evidence
Conviction is not always based on direct evidence.
The Court may resort to circumstantial evidence provided the following conditions are satisfied, to wit:
(a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
( c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court explained that a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
***What is the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts?
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive but shared with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the RTC. However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose the venue of action.
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is both a constitutional imperative and a filtering mechanism to enable the Court to focus on more important matters. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort.
However the doctrine is of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule and is subject to recognized exceptions such as cases of first impression where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on the matter and petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, among other.
(RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON vs. HON. ELISA R. SARMIENTO-FLORES)
[ G.R. No. 239215. July 12, 2022 ]
***What are the exception to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts?
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule and is subject to recognized exceptions, to wit:
(a) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;
(b) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (, i.e., whether the father can avail of the remedies under RA No. 9262 on behalf of his minor child against the mother’s violent and abusive acts)
(c) cases of first impression where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on the matter;
(d) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
(e) where exigency in certain situations necessitate urgency in the resolution of the cases;
(f) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
(g) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents’ acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression; and
(h) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
How must the search Conducted in order for the seized items be admissible in evidence?
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which specifically provides that
“no search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.” Only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family can the search be observed by two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The police officers do not have the discretion to substitute their choice of witness, the barangay captain in this case, for those witnesses prescribed by the rules.[7
State the NEW LAWYERS OATH.
I ite d s s t i a t h,
p,d a r o p l i t P
a a o o t c, i t i o o p.
I d f t t c o t R o t P.
I s d, I s w t p t r o l i a
r o t, j,f, l, e a p.
I s c a c w f j a w a s t r a m f o a p,
i a c
I s d n f, n s I p t l t u f
o p a.
I s f d t d a r t t
b o m a, w i a u c.
I i u m w m r n p o
e.
S h m G.
I IVY TOMENLACO ESTOR do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an officer of the court, in the interest of our people.
I declare fealty to the constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
In so doing, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law in a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace.
I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities.
I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice.
I shall do no falsehood, nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor or prejudice anyone.
I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity and utmost civility.
I impose upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion.
So help me God.
In Special ADR Rules, does failure to attach secretary’s certificate or special power of attorney authorizing the person who signed the verification and certification is fatal?
No. Failure to attach a secretary’s certificate or special power of attorney authorizing the person who signed the verification and certification is not fatal to cases covered by the Special ADR Riles. This is because the Special ADR Rules do not require the attachment of a secretary’s certificate or board resolution authorizing a person as the signatory of the verification and certification.
(Pioneer Insurance vs. Insurance Company GR256177 June 27, 2022)
What is the effect of subsequent publication of a notice of hearing for failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties?
Subsequent publication of a notice of hearing may cure the failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, such as when:
a. earnest efforts were made by petitioners on bringing to court all possible interested parties;
b. the parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings;
c. there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or
d when a party is inadvertently left ou
What is doctrine of Res Judicata?
The doctrine of Res Judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments lest there would be endless controversies.
The relitigation of issues already settled burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier causes.
What is the effect of Non-payment of docket fees?
The failure to pay the appellate court docket fees within the reglementary period warrants only a discretionary dismissal of the appeal, and not automatic dismissal. Furthermore, the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with justice and fair play and with great consideration of all the circumstances.
