Hannah Grace Refugio
JD III
Special Civil Action Midterm Exam
1
Rule 65 falls under the special
civil action because this is not considered an ordinary appeal, it is subject
to certain special rules. Certiorari on Rule 65 is: (1) an original and
independent action; (2) usually directed against an interlocutory order where
no appeal may be taken from; (3) raises questions of jurisdiction in cases
where tribunals acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, not
only on questions of law; (4) requires a prior motion for reconsideration as a
general rule; and (5) filed only with the Supreme Court, being a mode of
appeal.
2
(1) The doctrine of immutability of judgment is premised upon
the existence of a final and executory judgment. Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes
immutable and unalterable, however unjust the result of error may appear.
(2) The exceptions to the rule on
immutability of judgment are : (1)cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement is in question;(2)criminal cases in which the
appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpertua;(3)cases
raising novel questions of law;(4)cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls;(5)cases where the penalty recommended or imposed is the
dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of a lawyer, or the suspension of any of
them for a period of more than one year; (6)cases involving the reinstatement
in the judiciary of a dismissed judge, the reinstatement of a lawyer in the
roll of attorneys, or the lifting of a judge's suspension or a lawyer's
suspension from the practice of law; (8)cases involving conflicting decisions
of two or more divisions; (9)cases where three votes in a Division cannot be
obtained; and (10)division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact
on businesses or affects the welfare of a community.
(3 ) Yes, it is correct for the supreme court to
invalidate a final judgment and render a judgment of acquittal when it finds
that the judgment in the lower courts are incorrect. One of the exceptions
provided under the law on immutability of judgment on criminal cases in which the
appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpertua. In this
case, the maximum penalty that could be imposed on Jose Uy under the law is
reclusion perpetua. Hence, the doctrine on immutability of judgment does not
apply.
3
If I am the
counsel of Maria who thinks that an injustice had been committed against my
client, the legal action I would make to reverse the judgment of acquittal is
to file for certiorari under Rule 65. Being a remedy of last resort, this is
available when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petition for certiorari seeks to correct
jurisdictional errors often arising out of a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this case the decision of the CA may be
reviewed by the Supreme Court.
4
Contempt of court is of two kinds: (1)
direct; and (2) indirect contempt. The
offence of contempt of court is often described in case law as sui generis, which means that it belongs to a species all
of its own and so is unique. The power to punish
for contempt is to be used sparingly.
5
The proper
procedure and the rule to be followed in buying said property is expropriation.
In this rule, the private owner is deprived of property against his will, the
state must show that there is a genuine need and public purpose in taking the
private property, provided that just compensation must be afforded to the
private owner. The authority of the plaintiff to expropriate must be
determined, the necessity and the public purpose, then, the determination of
just compensation through the appointed commissioners.
6
The legal action
to be taken to solve the confusion is to file an Interpleader, a special civil
action filed by a person against two conflicting claims made upon the same
subject matter, over which he has no interest thereon. The elements of Interpleader
are the following: (1) there must be two or more claimants with adverse or
conflicting interest upon a subject matter; (2) the claims are made upon the
same person; (3) The claims involve the same subject matter; and (4) the
plaintiff has no claim on the subject matter.
7
To maintain the
integrity of the court, the legal action is to charge contempt of court with
the defendants. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
obstructs, impedes or degrade the administration of justice constitutes
indirect contempt. To vindicate the honor of the court, Contempt Proceedings
must be done pending appeal to punish contemptuous conduct and to compel the
contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the court.
8
Declaratory relief is defined as an
action by any person interested in a contract, deed, will, or other written
instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of
construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or
regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties
thereunder. Examples of “similar remedies under this rule are An action for the reformation of an
instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to
consolidate ownership.
9
The Court invoked the doctrine of the
"transcendental" importance of judicial review, ruling that the quo
warranto petition was a valid exercise of the Court's power, there
was an actual controversy, and the Republic
had standing. The Court ruled
that quo warranto cases
and impeachment proceedings can proceed independently and simultaneously due to
the fact that they are based on different causes of action; quo warranto questions the
eligibility and valid exercise of a position; whereas, impeachment is removal
for committing crimes specified by the Constitution. Furthermore, it ruled that
if it wished, Congress may have continued to impeachment without prejudice from
the Court on the principle of the separation of powers.
Quo warranto in Election Laws is
distinguished from the quo warranto in the civil service in the following distinctions:
(1) the issue in the former is the eligibility of the person elected, in the
latter, issue is the legality of the occupancy of office; (2) the petition is
brought in the Comelec, the RTC, MTC depending upon the case, in the latter,
the petition is filed with the Supreme Court; (3) in the former, the petitioner
may be any voter, in the latter, the petitioner is the person who claims to be
entitled of the office; and(4) the court cannot declare the elected second
place to occupy the office in the former, the court determines who is legally
appointed in the latter.
10
Judicial
and extrajudicial foreclosures may be distinguished from each other as follows:
(1) A judicial foreclosure is governed by the Rules of Court; an extrajudicial
foreclosure is governed by an Act; (2) recovery of the deficiency can be done
by mere motion for a deficiency judgment in judicial foreclosure; in an
extrajudicial foreclosure, the recovery of the deficiency is through an
independent action; (3) There is an equity of redemption in a judicial
foreclosure but no right of redemption; there is a right of redemption in
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. (4)In a judicial foreclosure, there
could be a deficiency judgment rendered by the court; there can be no judgment
for a deficiency in an extrajudicial foreclosure because there is no judicial
proceeding; and (5) A judicial foreclosure involves the filing of an
independent action; an extrajudicial judicial foreclosure does not require
filing of an action.
Extrajudicial
foreclosure is convenient and efficient as a remedy or a tool to help
suffering clients because there is no need of filing actions in a court that
will take time and resources on the part of the clients.
CASE PROBLEM:
In this case, the respondents
failed to state when the possession of the petitioner is initially lawful, when
and how their possession started. This is insufficient to determine if the
action was filed within a year from dispossession, as required in an ejectment
case. The proper remedy in this case is to file for an accion publiciana or
accion reivindicatoria asserting their right of ownership to the property.
Being that the respondents failed the file the proper case before the
appropriate court, MTC, the said court has no jurisdiction over the case.
Subsequently, the decisions rendered by the RTC and the CA are also considered
void.
No comments:
Post a Comment