Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts:
Petitioner issued two checks in favor of respondent to avert a
court litigation. The two checks, however, were dishonored by
the drawee for reason of insufficiency of funds. Thus,
respondent filed two criminal complaints against petitioner for
violation of BP 22 in MTC Pasig. On 22 September 1994, the
MTC convicted the accused. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to
RTC Pasig. On 18 January 1995, the RTC affirmed the MTC
decision with the modification that appropriate subsidiary
imprisonment be imposed in case of petitioners insolvency.
Ruling:
Petition is Denied.
Parties Arguments
Petitioner argues that the requirement of a notice of hearing
does not apply to the motion for reconsideration he filed
before Branch 261 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, as
said court was acting only in its appellate jurisdiction, the
proceedings therein being summary in nature. He further
asserts that said trial court gravely abused its discretion when
it issued the writ of execution, because it was the court of
origin, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68,
which had the authority to issue the writ.