UPDATES IN REMEDIAL LAW:

540 SCRA, Dec. 2007 Diamond Builders: Judgment which cannot be stayed by appeal

a. Compromise b. Forcible Entry & Unlawful Detainer c. Direct Contempt d. Expropriation

Republic: The grant of a motion to file a responding pleading and bill of particulars has the effect of lifting an order of default. a. A motion to lift a default order requires no hearingit need be under oath only and accompanied by an affidavit of merit showing a meritorious defense.

People vs. Aguilar: For the accused to be the stepfather of the victim, he must be legally married to the latters mother. Thus, simple rape. a. In People vs. Catubig, the retroactive application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure cannot adversely affect the rights of the offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining the appellants liability for exemplary damages.

539 SCRA, Dec. 4, 2007 Pedrano vs. Pedrano: Residual jurisdiction: Even if a decision has become final, the Supreme Court can still modify the same pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation whenever demands of justice so require.

538 SCRA, Nov. 23, 2007 Saguan vs. PBC: In petition for issuance of writ of possession, no need for notice of hearing to the adverse party.

Santos vs. Pryce Gas: There are four elements for a valid search warrant. The absence of one will cause its downright nullification. If improperly quashed, the remedy is Rule 65. Valdez vs. People: A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. 537 SCRA, Nov. 20, 2007

Romero vs. Court of Appeals : The 60 day period within which to file petition for certiorari starts to run from receipt of the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration if one is filed.

536 SCRA Oct. 17, 2007 MCC Industrial Sales Corp. vs. Sangyon: Best evidence Rule, Facsimile Transmissions; A facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. it is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. We, therefore, conclude that the terms electronic document, as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence. Since a facsimile transmission is not an electronic data message or an electronic document, and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence . Since a facsimile transmission is not an electronic data message or an electronic document, and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits E and F), which are mere photocopy of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic evidence, contrary to the position of both the trial and the appellate courts. 535 SCRA , October 5, 2007 Five Star Marketing vs. Booc: Appeals, Modes of Appeal from Decision of the Regional Trial Courts. There are three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely: a) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgement was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; b) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of

its appellate jurisdiction; and c) petition for review to the Supreme Court. Universal Robina Corporation vs. Lim: A court may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the grounds under Sec. 1, Rule 9. 542 SCRA, January 7, 2008 -KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. VS. LERMA It is now clear that foreign arbitral awards when confirmed by the Regional Trial Court are deemed not as a judgment of a foreign court but as a foreign arbitral award, and when confirmed, are enforced as final and executor decisions of our courts of law the concept of a final and binding arbitral award is similar to judgments or awards given by some quasijudicial bodies, like the National Labor Relations Commission and the Mines Adjudication Board FERNANDEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS : 458 SCRA: 1. Mere filing of a motion for extension of time to file petition for review does not amount to the appellate court acquiring jurisdiction over the case. 2. Residual jurisdiction- prior to transmittal of records, although deemed to have lost jurisdiction, the trial court can: a. Approve compromise b. Order execution pending appeal c. Allow withdrawal of appeal d. Issue preservation orders e. Permit appeals of indigent litigants City of Cebu vs. Del Rosario, 507 SCRA: There can be no forum shopping when in one petition a party questions the order granting the motion for execution pending appeal and in a regular appeal before the appellate court, the party questions the decision on the merits. CENTRAL SURETY vs. PLANTERS, 517 SCRA 651: Execution of judgment by mere motion may be allowed even after the lapse of five years when delay in the execution is caused by the actions of judgment debtor and/or incurred for his benefit. PARAY vs. RODRIGUEZ, 479 SCRA 572: There is no law that allows a right of redemption over personal property or even in the Chattel Mortgage Law. GAUDIANNE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 425 SCRA 296: For reasons of public policy, the defense of res judicata cannot be waived.

LAM vs. CHUA, 426 SCRA 28: Where a court enters judgment or awards relief beyond the prayer of the complaint, the excessive relief is not merely irregular but is void for want of jurisdiction. CORAM NONJUDICI. CABALLES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 452 SCRA 314: A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a remedy different from the special civil action of certiorari. The former is a collateral attack on the process, orders etc. while the latter is a direct attack of said process. The former reaches only jurisdictional errors while the latter reaches the body but not the records. The two remedies cannot be joined together. DNA: The accused who was convicted can file a petition for DNA testing. If the result of the post conviction DNA testing is favorable to the accused, he may secure his release by filing a petition for habeas corpus.

MSUGENSANBAROPERATION2009-09-25