LegRes Reviewer

Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 8

LABANAN!!!!!

GR Numbah
BAM GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW v. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT G.R. No. 132518
BENJAMIN G. TING v.
CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING G.R. No. 166562
LEOUEL SANTOS v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND
JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS G.R. No. 112019
LEOUEL SANTOS, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES
LEOPOLDO and OFELIA BEDIAs G.R. No. 113054
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL
OLAVIANO MOLINA G.R. No. 108763
BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS G.R. No. 136490
CHI MING TSOI v. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI G.R. No. 119190
REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL
RODEL JOSE C. CALIDA v. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO G.R. No. 237428

Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R.
No. 237428
(Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose
Calida
RODEL v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno) A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC

SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA vs. HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her


capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa
Cherry City, Branch 204s G.R. No. 229781
KEVIN KNIGHTS OF RIZAL v. DMCI HOMES, INC G.R. No. 213948

REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN,


GARY C. ALEJANO, EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, AND TEDDY
BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR. v. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEF'ENSE AND MARTIAL LAW
ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEN. EDUARDO ANO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW
BAM IMPLEMENTOR G.R. No. 231658

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LORENZO TAÑADA III, RONALD LLAMAS,


H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, ROGER R. RAYEL,
GARY S. MALLARI, ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES, CHRISTOPHER F.C.
Jodee BOLASTIG v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO G.R. No. 171396

BAM SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. REAR ADMIRAL ERNESTO C. ENRIQUEZ GR No. 225973


GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
Jodee THE SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) G.R. No. 220598
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH
Jodee DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR. G.R. Nos. 217126-27
Cherry JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) G.R. No. 213847
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA G.R. No. 169777
BAM JAMES M. IMBONG v. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. G.R. No. 204819
NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO v. THE
KEVIN EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G.R. No. 189028
Date of Promulgation
March 28, 2000 done

March 31, 2009

January 4, 1995

March 16, 1995

February 13, 1997


October 19, 2000
January 16, 1997

May 11, 2018 done

July 17, 2018 done

October 10, 2017 done


April 18, 2017 done

July 4, 2017 done

May 3, 2006 done

November 08, 2016 done

July 19, 2016 done

November 10, 2015


August 18, 2015 done
April 20, 2006
April 8, 2014 done

July 16, 2013 done


Doctrine of executive privilege. [The doctrine stating that a] “x x x President and those who assist him must be
free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many
would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege
for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably
rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution x x x ” [Almonte v. Vasquez, 314 Phil. 150 (1995)].

Doctrine of condonation. Admin. Law. [The doctrine that a] public official cannot be removed for administrative
misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the
officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule,
however, finds no application to criminal cases pending against petitioner. [Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768,
773 (1992)]. Also called Doctrine of forgiveness.

Doctrine of overbreadth. Consti. Law. [A]n exception to the prohibition against third-party standing, [the
doctrine] permits a person to challenge a statute on the ground that it violates the [free speech] rights of third
parties not before the court, even though the law is constitutional as applied to that defendant. In other words,
the overbreadth doctrine provides that: “Given a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are
unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the [free speech]
rights of other parties not before the court.” [Chemerinsky, Consti. Law, p. 86, 2nd Ed. (2002)]. Compare with
Doctrine of void for vagueness.

Doctrine of operative fact. [The doctrine that] nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that
the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
[It] is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have
relied on the invalid law. [Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., GR 166006, 14 Mar. 2008]. See also
Operative fact doctrine.

Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Rem. Law. An established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of
courts before they can seek relief directly from th[e Sup.] Court. Therationale for this rule is twofold: (a) it
would be an imposition upon the limited time of th[e Sup.] Court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred
to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the
issues because th[e Sup.] Court is not a trier of facts. [Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455
SCRA 460].

Doctrine of political question. [The] well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of
the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts
by express constitutional or statutory provisions. [Tañada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957].

Doctrine of qualified political agency. Pol. Law. The doctrine which holds that, as the Pres. cannot be expected
to exercise his control powers all at the same time and in person, he will have to delegate some of them to his
Cabinet members, who in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their
respective jurisdictions in the executive department. [Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409. Feb. 14, 1992].
Doctrine of void for vagueness. Consti. Law. [The doctrine that] is most commonly stated to the effect that a
statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of
ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against
that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving
clause or by construction. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR. 148560, 19 Nov. 2001]. Compare with Doctrine of
overbreadth.

Doctrine of command responsibility. The doctrine under which any government official or supervisor, or officer
of the PNP or that of any other law enforcement agency shall be held accountable for “Neglect of Duty” if he
has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his
subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its commission. [Sec. 1, EO 226. Feb.
17, 1995].

DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENT RELEVANT STATEMENT is an exception to the hearsay rule. It applies in cases
where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial.
In other words, whether the such statements were made by the accused.
G.R. No. 231658 G.R. No. 171396

G.R. No. 231658

alter-ego doctrine
G.R. No. 231658

G.R. No. 231658

You might also like