Category Archives: Litigation

Bar Matter No. 1922: MCLE Compliance

1 Reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated June 3, 2008:

“Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program. Continue reading →

Extradition procedures and principles in the United States

Leave a reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

In one of the Senate hearings in relation to the NBN investigation, a point was raised regarding a request for extradition of potential witnessess allegedly in the United States of America. Extradition is a big word for non-lawyers who watched the Senate investigation, so it may be helpful to have a brief discussion on this subject. Continue reading →

Salient Points of the Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court

2 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

The Supreme Court recently approved certain amendments to the Rules of Court. On 4 December 2007, the SC issued A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, approving the proposed amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court. The Resolution took effect on 27 December 2007, following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The amendments include: Continue reading →

A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (full text): Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court

Leave a reply | Related posts at the bottom of article
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC
AMENDMENTS TO RULES 41, 45, 58 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT
(Full text also here)
RESOLUTION

Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee on the Revision of Rule 65 submitting for this Court’s consideration and approval the proposed amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same. Continue reading →

The Mendiola Massacre: What Happened according to Jurisprudence

Leave a reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

Today, 22 January 2008, marks the 21st anniversary of what has been dubbed as the “Mendiola Massacre.” An entire generation may not be aware of, and many could have already forgotten, what transpired on that date. In the words of the Supreme Court: “People may have already forgotten the tragedy that transpired on January 22, 1987. It is quite ironic that then, some journalists called it a Black Thursday, as a grim reminder to the nation of the misfortune that befell twelve (12) rallyists. But for most Filipinos now, the Mendiola massacre may now just as well be a chapter in our history books. For those however, who have become widows and orphans, certainly they would not settle for just that. They seek retribution for the lives taken that will never be brought back to life again.” Continue reading →

Checkpoints and the right against unreasonable search and seizure

6 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

A checkpoint is something that motorists have to contend with on the road. Only recently, a “concerned Filipino citizen” raised some issues with respect to PNP/AFP checkpoints. The issues raised are valid, as the Supreme Court itself noted that it “has become aware of how some checkpoints have been used as points of thievery and extortion practiced upon innocent civilians. Even the increased prices of foodstuffs coming from the provinces, entering the Metro Manila area and other urban centers, are largely blamed on the checkpoints, because the men manning them have reportedly become “experts” in mulcting travelling traders. This, of course, is a national tragedy.” Continue reading →

Jurisdiction of Philippine Courts

1 Reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

Jurisdiction sounds a bit intimidating for the layman, specially if you add “court” to it. This is particularly true if there’s a “foreign element,” such as in contracts, where a particular aspect of the contract — whether in its nature, negotiations, execution, performance or breach — is done or governed in a territorial jurisdiction outside the Philippines. Continue reading →

Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC; full text)

Leave a reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

(The use of DNA in cases gained popularity in recent years. It is used not only in criminal cases, but also in paternity disputes. This month, the Supreme Court issued the Rule on DNA Evidence, through A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, 2 October 2007. The full text of the Rule on DNA Evidence is reproduced below.) Continue reading →

Writ of Amparo: Questions and Answers

1 Reply | Related posts at the bottom of article

What is the writ of amparo?

It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Continue reading →

Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC; full text)

3 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

(The Supreme Court already approved the Rule on the Writ of Amparo [A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September 2007], which is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. Here’s the full text of the Rule, which shall take effect on 24 October 2007.)

THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Continue reading →