20. Court of Appeals Digest of Decisions.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: COURT OF APPEALS DIGEST OF' DECISIONS CERTIORARI; EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT; EXAMIN1\TION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR; CONTEMPT; EXCESS OJ~ JURISDICTION.- A judgment debtot· can only he required to apJJear and answer concerning his property and income before the Court of First Instance of the province in which he resides or is found, so that an order issued by any other Coutt of First InA ancc dedaring such judgment debtor in contempt and ordering his ttrrP;;t for iailu1e to ::ippcar for such examinatiim is nu!I and void ns issurd in excess of jurisdiction. Chiong Bu Ho11g, vs. Bien1•c11ido Ta11. rt fli., C.4. C.R. Nfl. 27345-R, Jm•e 23, 1900, .-hgclc.~ . J. CEnTIORARI; CONTEMPT ; LACK OF JUP..ISOICT JON OF COURT ISSUING ORDER; EFFECT; WAIVER.-The power to punish for contempt should be used ~paringly, with caution, deliberation, llnd with due regard to the provisions of the law and" the consiit.utional right!I of tho! in,!ividual. Disobedience of, or resi~t ance to, a void mandate, order, judgment, or decree, or one issued by a court without jurisdiction of the subject-matter aiid pa:-ties!ihi::!nt, is net contempt, and where Hw court has no jurisdictior. to make the ord£:r, no waiver can cut Qff the rights of the party to attack its validity. (U.S. Fedcial Trude Commission vs. Fair-foot Prr.ducts Co., 94 F'. 3d, 844; 17 C.J.S. p. 19, note 34.) l!Jid. CRIMINAL LAW: MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCB: PLBA OF GUILTY WHEN NOT MIT IGA'rING.- A judicial pica of ~uih~· after thr pl"osecution had introduced its evidence is no longer a mitirr.tting circumstance (Pe:ople vs. de la Pena, 66 Phil. 459). Resid~s. a plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance is not ap1 :\icable to a prosecution under special laws (Article 10, Revised Prnal CodC'; People vs. Ramos, 44 0. G. 3288; U. S. Barba 29 Phil. 206, U S. \'!<. Santiago, 35 Phil. 20; People vs. Maicpiez CA-47 O.G. 4226). , People vs. C1istodio T ecson, CA-G.R. N o. 18256R, June 30, 1960, f'iccio, J. CRll\llNAL PROCEDURE; PL EA OF GU I LTY.~ Upon a judicial plea oi guilty (Sec. 3 Rule 114, Rules of Court), intcrp"sec: by the accused generally upon a1·raignll'ent (before trial on the merit<;), the com1, when sa:isfied that same h•;.d been i11teqll,~:ed freely and voluntarily by the defendant who was well aware of its natul"e ,.ind consequences, may pronounce said accused "guilty" and forthwith convict him without requi1·ing the prosecution to introduce its evidence. And it makes no difference that such plea was made after the introd11ction cf prosecution's evidence. The effect is the same. Ibid. ACTIONS; ACTION FOR PARTITION: PRESCRIPTION. - Generally, an action foi- partition among co-heirs and co-owners doe,; not prescribe. This rule, however, applies only to "actions where19Vl BAH ... (Contim1ed from pa.r,e 3411) IV. A files an action to recover a parcel of land from B b:lsed t:pon a notarial deed of sale and A attaches a copy of the de~d of sale to his complaint. B claims that he did not sell his property to A, and that the signature 1mrporting to be his on the ,l.,eJ i<i li fu1·gery. As lawye1· for B, p1 ·cpare an answer, supri!ying other details. \'. (a) Define and distinguish attorney's contingent fee and champertous fee. (b) In the absence of a written contract between attorney <md dirnt, what factors are lo be considered in determining 1 hc :.tmount of attcrney's fees? Vi. (a) In the event that severnl lawyers representing a party in a case should act differently on any matte1 · relating to the l'tigation, which of these may propel"ly claim the right to bind the client? in the !"iiriits of all parties to their respective shares of the inhcrit:rnce is taken for g ranted but not to an action wherein the plaintiff's l'ight to participate in the inheritance is denied.~ (Baqrnyo vs. Camumot, 40 Phil. 857, 8'?0). Jnlio Dolar et al., vs. Eliseo Dei:rumco.t, d (ll., CA-G.R. No. 24528-R, J11ly 18 , 1%0 , Ampa"o, J. JUDGMENT; ENFORCEMENT; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.A valid· judgment may be enforced either by motion within five years after entry or by action after the lapse of said period but bdoi-e it ;s barred by any statute of limitations, and a vidid <XECUtion issued nnct levy made within the five-year period after entry of judgment may be enforced by the sale of thC property levied upon, 1 >rovided the sale is made within ten years a fler rmi.ry of :,;:uC'h iudg-ment. 1\ie8lol"ci R igo1· Vda. de Q1tiambao, et aL, vs. !lfonila Motor Comµcrn.y, Inc., et ti!., C.'1.-G.R. No. 17031-R, .July 23 , 1960, Nt1livi<lml, J . OHLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; VESTED RIGHT, J\IEANING OF.- Vested' right has hc~n defined as accrued, fixet!, si:ttkd, :.:bto:ute, having ihe character or giving the .. jghts c.f nbsohitc nvncrship, not contingent, not subject to be defeated Ly a condition pret·ede11l. Primarily, ;'vested" is to be interpreted as 1ne11ni:lg frre (rom a ll c011ting<>rcy. In this sense, it is nea?"ly €quivalent to ';possessed." However , the word is often used in a different sense from its techniC'al 01· strictly legal meaning; thus, ''vested" has been construed tCJ mean not subject to be divested or indefeasible ; transmissible. I t has alsc been constrned to mea11 payab;e. 67 C.J., pp. 239-240. The Unit<:(/ States of A1neri.cn v.<· f',)(i1v \"t"f/el de Dfos, et 11!, CA -G.R. :Vo. 21474-R, J,tfy 25, 1900, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ORAL MOTION TO QUASH; EFFICACY· SECTION 3 RU LE 113 RULES OF COUHT.- Seetion 3 of R~le 113 of th~ Rules of CCiurt states that a motion to ' qu'l>'h sh:t:i bC" in writing, s1i~11ed ~~, the defo11dant or his a1k -rney", and .. shall specify distmctly the ground of objection" rc!ied upon. However, an oral motion to quash presented in open court, at an opportune time, that is, before arraignment, ~nd ba~cd on the ground that more than one offense was charged m th1: information, should be considered as effectively placed before the coul't for its consideration and decision as if it had been in writing·. Tc deny the motion for being void and inefficacious because it was not reduced to writing, is to place inordinate importance on the sha<low rnthcr than on the substance of the law, am! to sfress technicality while denying justice. Hair-splitting technicalities shculd be 0 frowned upon and avoided if they do not square with the ends of justice. People vs. fl!u1111el Ballena , CA-G.R. Nv. 20810-R. .July 25, 1960, Castro, J. (b) What duties, if any, does an attorney owe to a client, after the termination of the relationship of attorney and client? VI I. Drnf~ a motion for leave to i11krvene in n civil case. Snpply necessary tletails. V III. (a) Draw an infornlation fo1· filing in the Court of First Instance, charging an accused for estafa. Supply the necessary cietails. (b) Prepu re a motion to quash !:nid information on any of the grounds provided by law. IX. What inhibitions, if any, are imposed upon members of the R:ir who ~,.e likew ise members of Congress in the practice of the law profession and why? X. Pn•prt!·e the following: (a) Jurat; (b) aeknowledgemer.t in a deed of sale consisting of more than two pages and coverin~ three pai·cels of land ; (c) attestation clause in a last will and tcst:,ment ; (d) arfi<la\·it of Go:i<l l~aith in a Chii.ttel Mn1·tgage. No\·embc!r 30, 1961 LAWYEHS \JOURNAL Pngc 34'.)
Date: 1961
Rights