Remedial Law

Title: A Primer on the Barangay Justice with ADR Law
Author: Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL
Publisher: Central Book Supply, Inc.
ISBN: 978-971-011-204-3
No. Of Pages: 180
Size: 6"x9"
Binding: Softbound
Price:  ₱ 395
Description:  We belong to a country where our government spent huge amount of money for adversarial litigations that generate hostile feelings between the parties who are involved in expensive and protracted law suits. In 2009, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Accomplishment Report and Executive Summary reported a total of 4, 154, 587 pauper clients assisted and a total of 591, 358 cases handled. In 2008, the National Prosecution Service (NPS) handled a total of 417,000 cases for preliminary investigation and a total of more or less 750,000 cases in the first and level courts averaging to 1 prosecutor for every 406 court cases. In 2007, the case load of First Level Courts totalled to 546, 314 while the case load of Second Level courts totalled to 546, 033. With these high figures, we have congested court dockets, a perennial problem since time immemorial, that hamper access to justice by the poor, a right enshrined in our Constitution. Part of the solution to this problem is to resort to Katarungang Pambarangay, known also as Barangay Justice as an alternative way of settling disputes in a cheaper and faster way. To realize this better dispute resolution, there must be an information campaign to the public, and so out of this imposing purpose, this book A PRIMER ON THE BARANGAY JUSTICE WITH ADR LAW was made upon the suggestion of a former UP College of Law Dean Froilan M. Bacungan, who was a member of Presidential Decree No. 1293 that created a presidential commission tasked with a duty of studying the feasibility of instituting a system of settling disputes among the members in the barangay without going to the courts. The author, Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM was a former Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman and an Ex Officio member of the Sangguniang Barangay in 1992. As SK Chairman, among others, she was exposed to the legislative works in the Barangay ; She exercised the duties and responsibilities of a Barangay official; and she gained experience on simple matters dealing with the Barangay Justice System. She finished her pre-law degree from the University of the Philippines in the Visayas without paying any tuition fees as a Department of Interior and Local Government Scholar because of her position as SK Chairman. In a way, this book is her humble way of thanking the Barangay and the DILG for the free education from 1993 to 1996. She earned the distinction as the only SK Chairman from the province (Western Samar) who became a National Capital Region (Pasay City) Metropolitan Trial Court Judge in the country.

Facts: Petitioner (Boston Equity Resources) filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Herein respondent (Lolita Toledo) filed an Answer and later filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. The death certificate of Manuel states "13 July 1995" as the date of death. As a result, petitioner filed a motion to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. In compliance with the verbal order of the court during the hearing of the case, respondent submitted the required names and addresses of the heirs. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Substitution praying that Manuel be substituted by his children as partydefendants. It appears that this motion was granted by the trial court.

People vs. Cecilia “Cheche” Lazaro , Criminal Case No. M – PSY – 09-09532 – CR, for violation of RA No. 4200 (The Anti-Wiretapping Act), the news of the court’s ruling was published by newspapers and tabloids on August 18, 2010. The news landed in the front page of the Philippine Star

Femployment in the government service, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.. Pat-og filed a motion for reconsideration, questioning for the first time the jurisdiction of CSC over the case. He contends that Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4670, otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, provides that administrative charges against a public school teacher shall be heard initially by a committee constituted under said section. As no committee was ever formed, the petitioner posits that he was denied due process and that the CSC did not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide his administrative case. He further argues that notwithstanding the fact that the issue of jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal, the rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has no jurisdiction over the cause of action or subject matter of the case. Issue: Whether CSC has jurisdiction over the case. Held: Yes. The petitioner's argument that the administrative case against him can only proceed under R.A. No. 4670 is misplaced.

Judge Eliza B. Yu is the one and only Judge who opposed the implementation of Jar on Criminal Cases in 2012.

SC stopped implementation of JAR on Criminal Cases  in 2013.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/288538/news/nation/sc-halts-implementation-of-judicial-affidavit-rule-on-criminal-cases

SC stopped implementation of JAR on Criminal Cases  in 2014.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/342171/news/nation/sc-extends-modified-judicial-affidavit-rule-for-another-year

Spouses PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI, petitioners, vs. Spouses ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON, respondents. Gregorio D. Caneda for petitioners. Pablito G. Baluyut for private respondents. SYNOPSIS Petitioners, to qualify for a million peso bank loan, entered into a contract of sale covering a parcel of land originally mortgaged to a lending institution with respondents with the understanding that the same property would be mortgaged with the bank and the proceeds turned over to petitioners. The parties entered into two (2) other agreements, one embodying their real intention, and the other a deed of sale in the amount of Php1.4M over the property. Thus, the second mortgage was entered into between respondents and the bank. However, when petitioners failed to pay the monthly amortization, the bank debited from respondents' account the installments due. Respondents sued petitioners in another forum while petitioners filed Civil Case No. 11112 against respondents. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. Notice of Appeal was filed on February 4, 1999. The Court of Appeals, noting the failure of petitioner to pay the appellate docket fees, dismissed outright the appeal. Petitioners' motion was also denied. Hence, this recourse, petitioners claiming that the Court has relaxed, in certain instances, the rules. The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the decision sought to be appealed from becoming final and executory. The strict application of the jurisdiction nature of the rule on payment of appellate docket fees may be mitigated under exceptional circumstances. The inadvertence of clients, who are laymen, in following the rule is not a compelling reason to relax the rule. SYLLABUS 1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; APPEAL; PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD, MANDATORY.-Time and again, this Court has consistently held that the "payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.-Appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege. Corollary to this principle is that the appeal must be exercised strictly in accordance with provisions set by law. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal to the CA from a case decided by the regional trial court in the exercise of the latter's original jurisdiction shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. Such appeal is made by filing a notice thereof with the court that rendered the judgment or final order and by serving a copy of that notice upon the adverse party. Furthermore, within this same period, appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. The payment of docket fees within this period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal. Otherwise, the appellate court would not be able to act on the subject matter of the action, and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. In short, the payment of the appellate docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement, without which the decision or final order appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all.

In the case at bar, both the plaintiff  Maria Lacson  and defendant Emma Lim  have tax declarations. But the actual proof of possession belonged to the defendant Emma Lim. Plaintiff  Maria Lacson  should have been put on guard by defendant Emma Lim’s  declaration of the property for tax purposes. The defendant Emma Lim’s tax declaration represented an adverse claim over the unregistered property and was inimical to the rights of plaintiff Maria Lacson.

Facts: Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner was engaged in selling shabu, police officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of petitioner, secured a search warrant from the RTC and around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of September 13, 1997, the same police operatives went to Gil Tudtud St., Mabolo, Cebu City to serve the search warrant to petitioner.