1.
In Rule 65, it is an independent action whereas in the mode of appeal it is just an ordinary action. It involves the question of the jurisdiction and not the law, unlike other modes of appeal. It is directed against an interlocutory order or matters where there is no other plain and speedy remedy. And, the case will not stay challenge unless there is a temporary restraining order.
2.
1. The rule on immutability of the final judgment means that when the judgment already attained its finality it can no longer be disturbed to avoid delay and judgments errors.
2. Under the law, the exceptions are when there is a correction of clerical errors , there is a grave injustice resulting to the rules applied, void judgments and any other exceptions provided by the law.
3. No, it is not correct for the Supreme Court to invalidate the final judgment and render an acquittal instead.Under the rule , on immutability of the final judgment means that when the judgment already attained its finality it can no longer be disturbed. It is clear that there is a final judgment already rendered by the Court. And that it is not of the exceptions provided by the law, Therefore, in applying the rule on immutability of final judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court is incorrect in issuing a judgment of acquittal.
3.
The legal action that I can take is to file for a review of judgments. Under the law, it must be based on a question of law through a mode of review.In Rule 65 , the petition must alleges grave abuse of discretion towards the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Hence, rule 65 may be avail by the Maria Virginia as a remedy.
4.
Generally , a contempt is a disobedience to the court. There are two kinds of contempt direct contempt and indirect contempt. In direct contempt, a person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to interrupt the proceeding, While, an indirect contempt is committed by a person who resist to a lawful order of a court, abuses or interferes unlawfully with the proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt. It must be used sparingly means the court will avail to both kinds of contempt to protect the court's proceedings and preserve the dignity of the court. This law must apply with caution that it won't jeopardize the constitutional right of a person.
5.
Under the law, a local government unit is vested with the power of eminent domain . However, before it can exercise this power it must create an ordinance enacting to exercise the power of eminent domain. The purpose must be for public use, public benefit or for the general welfare. And lastly, there must be a valid payment for just compensation.
6.
I will file for an action for interpleader. Under the law, an interpleader is when a party has property in his possession but who claims no interest in the subject or is not disputed by others, goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants to litigate among themselves to determine finally who is entitled to the property. It is proper because as the Chief of Police, I don't have any prior knowledge if who is entitled to the vehicle since there are two conflicting claimants of the said vehicle.
7.
I will file for a contempt against the court. Under the law, a contempt is a power to punish that is essential for the preservation of court proceedings as well to maintain the integrity and respect for the court as a enforcer of the justice. However , in this case there is a clear violation that constitute an indirect contempt. Because Atty. Juan, not committed in the presence of the court exercised an improper conduct that degrade the administration of justice.
8.
Under the law, a declaratory relief is when it is brought by a person interested under a contract or any other written instrument that are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation. The other similar remedies are action for reformation of an instrument, to quiet title and to consolidate ownership. The court is given the discretion to act or not to act on the petition. It may choose not to construe the instrument if a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action and when the construction is not necessary anymore.
9.
Under the law, a quo warranto is a writ is issued by court to determine the right to use an office, franchise or position and also to oust a person entitled to hold right on the grounds for forfeiture of the said exercise of office, franchise or position. In this quo warranto it is issue of the legality of the said position, office or franchise on the grounds of forfeiture or usurpation of power. Whereas, in the election law it is a question of the eligibility of the elected person on the grounds of ineligibility, disqualification or failure to meet the said requirements prescribe by the law. And lastly, in quo warranto in the rules of court only the person entitled to the said office, association or position can file a petition unlike in the election law, it can be filed by any voters.
10.
Under the law, a judicial foreclosure is an ordinary action for foreclosure through court proceedings, while an extrajudicial foreclosure is available when a person authorize the mortgage of a property through special power of attorney. I think the more convenient for me is through extrajudicial foreclosure because it is more speedy unlike the judicial foreclosure.In the judicial foreclosure, you need to undergo the judicial proceedings prescribed by the law.
CASE PROBLEM:
There are remedies available for a person who is deprived of his or her property. Under the law, a forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be avail by any person. In forcible entry, it is an action to recover a possession of a property who is in illegal possession from the beginning. And that the lawful owner is deprived of the physical possession of such property by force, threat or intimidation. A unlawful order is when it is illegally witholds possession of the property because of a reason of termination or expiration of a contract. In this case, the proper remedy should be a forcible entry and not a case of unlawful detainer. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of the said property by means of force, intimation , threat or any other means, It is clear that spouses Balbosa was deprived for the use of their properties because of the the occupants. Moreover, there can also be no tolerance since the possession was illegal obtained. Wherefore, the judgment of the RTC is modified.
No comments:
Post a Comment