Monday, February 28, 2011

Regular Courts v. DARAB; recovery of possesion

Where a question of jurisdiction between the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is at the core of a dispute, basic jurisprudential tenets come into play. It is the rule that jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial body or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed  irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. In the same vein, jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant in the an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction will become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. Only the DARAB, as the DAR's quasi-judicial body, can determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP.
The absence of tenurial arrangement, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, cannot be overlooked. When no juridical tie of landownership and tenancy is allege, a controversy cannot be categorized as an agrarian dispute. Hence, jurisdiction is with the regular courts.
(DEARBC v. Jesus Sangumay & Sonny Labunos, G.R. No. 180013. January 31, 2011)

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Impeachment: One-Year Bar Rule

The Supreme Court does not downplay the importance of an impeachment complaint, for it is the matchstick that kindles the candle of impeachment proceedings. The filing of an impeachment complaint is like the lighting of a matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone, however, cannot light up the candle, unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick.
Referring the complaint to the proper committee ignites the impeachment proceeding. With a simultaneous referral of multiple complaints filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the same time. What is important is that there should only be one candle that is kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle.
A prospective complainant, regardless of ill motives or best intentions, can wittingly or unwittingly desecrate the entire process by the expediency of submitting a haphazard complaint out of sheer hope to be the first in line. One needs only to be an early bird even without seriously intending to catch the worm, when the process is precisely intended to effectively weed out "worms" in high offices which could otherwise be ably caught by other prompt birds within the ultra-limited season (Ma. Merceditas N. Guitierez v. The House of Rep., Committee on Justice, et al. G.R. No. 193459. February 15, 2011).

Monday, February 14, 2011

Execution by the Sheriff

A sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. When a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of instructions, to proceed with reasonable promptness to execute it according to its mandate. The lifetime of a writ of execution is without limit for as long as the judgment has not been satisfied, but is returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after receipt of the writ, the sheriff shall report to the court and state the  reason therefore. The Sheriff is mandated to make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until judgment is satisfied in full. Sheriffs must exert every effort to see to it that the final stage in the litigation process is carried out in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice. A decision left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to their inefficiency renders it useless. Worse, the parties prejudiced by the inaction tend to condemn the entire judicial system for the lapse (German Agunday v. Lemuel Velasco, A.M. No. P-05-2003. December 6, 2010).

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Bar Exams update

The Supreme Court recently approved the schedule of the filling of the Petitions to take the Bar Exams to July 1, 2011 up to August 15, 2011 considering that the date of the Bar Examinations has been moved from September to November 2011.
The change in the schedule is attributed to the change in the Bar Exams' date, which was moved to give time for law professors and students to adjust to the approved reforms in the exams.
The venue for this year's Bar Examinations will be at the University of Santo Tomas.

Execution not stayed

Specialis Derogat Generali.. When two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other.
The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman supersedes the discretion given to the Court of Appeals in Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to order the stay of a decision of the Ombudsman in an administrative case appealed to it (Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, G.R. No. 175573. October 5, 2010).