Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013

8/14/2019 Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013

1/38

JUSTICE HILARION L. AQUINO

UPDATES IN REMEDIAL LAW

(CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES)


2/38

PART ONE

CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction and Amendment of Complaint

Santos v. Claraval, 613 SCRA 333 (2010)

If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, the complaint cannot be amended to confer jurisdiction to it.

Note: Under Sec. 2, Rule 10, R.C., if no responsive pleading has yet been

served upon the plaintiff, he can amend the complaint as a matter of right.

According to Rosario v. Carangdang, 96 Phi. 845 (1955) in such a situation,

plaintiff can amend his defective complaint to make the subject matter fall under

the jurisdiction of the court.


3/38

2. In Aid of Appellate Jurisdiction

Galang, Jr. v. Geronimo, 643 SCRA 631 (2011)

Since it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an

appeal from decision of the regional trial court on election contests involving

election of municipal officials, then it is also the COMELEC which has

jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its jurisdiction.

Consequently, where, in an election case before the RTC, the court issues aninterlocutory order which is challenged on certiorari, the petitioner shoud be

filed not in the CA but in the SB.

Note: J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et. al. 9 SCRA 189 (1963)

In aid of appellate jurisdiction means that if a case is appealable to aparticular court or judicial tribunal or body, that court, tribunal or body has

jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.


4/38

3. Jurisdiction and Docket Fees

3.1. Julian v. DBP, 661 SCRA 745 (2011)

The payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory andjurisdictional. Failure to pay the court docket fee within the prescribed period warrants adiscretionary but not automatic dismissal of the case.

3.2. Lu v. Lu, Sr., 643 SCRA 23 (2011)

If the correct amount of docket fees is not paid at the time of filing, the court shall acquirejurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant barring

prescription.

The prescriptive period that bars the payment of the docket fees refers to the period in which aspecific action must be filled. (Fedman Development Corporation v. Agcaoili, 656 SCRA 354 (2011)

3.3. D.M. Wenceslao and Associates v. City of Paranaque, 656 SCRA 369 (2011)

The payment of the appeal docket fee within the prescribed period for appeal ismandatory for perfection of the appeal. When the appeal docket fee is not paid in full within thereglementary period, the decision of the trial court becomes final and no longer correctible byappeal.


5/38

4. Omnibus Rulings in Civil Procedure

Republic v. Mangotora, 624 SCRA 360 (2010)Facts (133 pages of SCRA)

There were 7 cases that emanated from the trial court: a) 2

actions for quieting of title; b) expropriation; c) 3 unlawful detainer

cases; and d) reversion all of which involved the same parcels ofland. All these cases reached the Supreme Court via petition for

review or certiorari (Rule 45) and petition for certiorari (Rule 65).

The seven cases were consolidated and decided jointly.


6/38

Republic v. Mangotora, continuation

Doctrinal Pronouncements

1. The Republic was in error when it filed a petition for review on certiorari and

petition for certiorari because these are two distinct remedies which are mutually

exclusive not alternative nor successive. In the interest of justice the Supreme

Court treated all the petitions as petitions for review on certiorari. (Rule 45)

2. The issue of whether or not the trial court should have dismissed one case on

2 grounds: a) forum shopping and b) an indispensable party has not been

impleaded raises a question of fact. Therefore, the Republic was correct in

directly appealing the trial courts decision to the SC on a petition for review oncertiorari. This did not violate the rule on heirarchy of courts because it is

precisely provided for in the Constitution.


7/38


3. Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground to dismiss an

action. The proper judicial course of action is to order the plaintiff to

implead the indispensable party and if he fails or refuses, the the court

can dismiss the case.

4. If a land is in the name of the Republic but the same is in thepossession of a party who claims an interest in said property,

expropriation, aside from other remedies, is a proper remedy.

5. The action of reversion and expropriation on the same property can be

instituted simultaneously or successively because one does not precludethe other. For example: if in the reversion case, the decision is the

reversion of the title of the land to the Republic, expropriation can be

instituted against the occupant thereof.


8/38


6. In an action for quieting of title, the court of proper jurisdiction can rule on

claimants status, filiation and heirship. Note: In an action for reconveyance, the

trial court cannot declare heirship of a party for only the probate or intestate

court can make that determination. The SC justified its ruling in the case of

quieting of title because this action is a special proceeding and as such, status

and filiation can be determined.

Note further: In Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, 467 SCRA 184 (2005), the SC

ruled that in an action for annulment of an Affidavit of Adjudication and the

certificate of title issued upon the registration of said Affidavit of Adjudication, the

issue of whether petitioner was an heir of the original owner of the subject

property can be determined by the trial court without the need of a prior filing of

an intestate proceeding for declaration of heirship and settlement of the estate ofthe deceased person.


9/38


7. Nature of an action for quieting of title The concept of cause of action in ordinary civil

action does not apply to quieting of title because the latter is a special civil action being in the

nature of declaratory relief.

The title to be quieted according to Art. 477 of CC is a legal or equitable title or an

interest on a real property. Title does not pertains to certificate of title under the Torrens

System; rather it pertains to a right of dominion or possession over a realty.

Hence, even unregistered property can be the subject of an action for quieting of title.

Even a party not in possession of the subject land can institute an action for quieting of title if

he possesses a legal or equitable title or interest in said property.

8. The rule that the execution of a decision in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases which

is immediately final and executory may be stayed by complying with the requirementsprovided for in Sec. 19, Rule 70, R.C. applies only to decision on appeal to the RTC. If the

RTC has rendered a decision affirming the decision of ejectment of the first level court, and

the same is an appeal to CA. Sec. 21 applies and not Sec. 19.


10/38

5. Requirement in the Issuance of an Order Compelling a Party to Submit to

DNA Testing

Lucas v. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667 (June 6, 2011)

Background Case: Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005). There are

four (4) significant procedural aspects in paternity actions:

1. A prima facie case

The testimony of the mother that she had sexual relation with the putativefather, if corroborated establishes a prima facie evidence of paternity which

shifts the onus of proof to the putative father.

1. Affirmative defenses

There are 2 affirmative defenses available to the putative father:

a) Incapability of sexual relations with the mother either because of

absence or impotency; and

b) Mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception.


11/38

Lucas v. Lucas, continuation

3. Presumption of legitimacy

A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is

presumed legitimate. The childs legitimacy may be impugned only

under strict standards provided by law.4. Physical resemblance between putative father and child may be

offered as part of the evidence of paternity.

Note: A court order directing a putative father to submit himself to

DNA testing is not offensive to the constitutional right against self

incrimination. That right pertains only to testimonial evidence.


12/38


13/38

6. Recent Jurisprudence on Action for Reconveyance

6.1. Munoz v. Yabut, 650 SCRA 344 (2011)

Nature of Action

An action for reconveyance is a real action so that jurisdiction is determined by

the assessed value of the land in suit. It is also an action in personam so

that a decision binds only the parties. Consequently, a writ of execution

issued in the case cannot be enforced against a stranger.

6.2. Leoveras v. Valdez, 653 SCRA 1 (2011)

Concept of Action

An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the

rightful landowner whose land has been erroneously or fraudulentlyregistered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to

transfer or reconvey the land to him.


14/38

6.3. Luga v. Arceaga, 654 SCRA 661 (2011)

Two Types of Actionsa) Under the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529)

This is the action which the owner of a land which has been

erroneously registered in the name of another can institute after

one year from the issuance of the decree of registration providedthat the property has not yet been conveyed to an innocent buyer

for value.

b) Under the Civil Code (Articles 1449-1467)

This is an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust.


15/38

6.4. Prescriptive Period

a) Luga v. Arceaga, Id

The action for reconveyance under the Property Registration Decree which

should be filed after one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration

does not prescribed for as long as the land does not fall into the hands of an

innocent buyer for value.

b) Fernando, Jr. v. Acua, 657 SCRA 499 (2011)An action for reconveyance based an implied trust prescribed after 10

years from date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the title

of the land.

If the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance

is imprescriptible. Such an action is properly one for quieting of title.


16/38

7. Locus Standi in Mandamus

Guingona v. COMELEC, 630 SCRA 448 (2010)

If petition for mandamus is anchored on the peoples right to information on matters of publicconcern, any citizen can be a real party in interest the requirement of personal interestis satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen. There is no need to show anyspecial interest in the subject of the case.

Public interest anything which the public may want to know, either because such mattersdirectly affect their lives or simply because said matters naturally arouse the interest of anordinary citizen.

8. Amended Complaint

Dionisio v. Linsangan, 644 SCRA 424 (2011)

An amended complaint that changes the plaintiffs cause of action is technically a newcomplaint. The action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such amended pleading,not on the date of the filing of its original version. An amendment which supplements or

amplifies the facts previously alleged does not affect the reckoning date of filing based onthe original complaint.

To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether suchamendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which iscompletely different from that stated in the original complaint.


17/38

9. Res Judicata

Facura v. Court of Appeals, 643 SCRA 427 (2011)

The doctrine in Montemayor, 405 SCRA 264 (2003) that res

judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and

not to administrative case has been abandoned in subsequentcases so that the prevailing rule now is that the rule on res judicata

also applies to administrative cases.


18/38

10. Summary Judgment

10.1. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Go, 642 SCRA 693 (February 14,

2011)

The determinative factor in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absenceof a genuine issue as to any material fact. A genuine issue is an issue of fact which

requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived

or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there

is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called

for. The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating

clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaintis patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts

have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is

clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the

parties are disputed or contested, proceeding for summary judgment cannot take the

place of trial.

10.2. Ybiernas v. Gabaldon, 650 SCRA 154 (2011)

A summary judgment may not be rendered on the amount of damages to be awarded but

it can rule on the issue of the right of a party to claim for damages.


19/38

11. Judgment, Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgment

11.1. Genato v. Viola, 611 SCRA 677 (2010)

Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgment: General Rule

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be

modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of

fact or law and whether it was made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the

land.

11.2. Marmosy Trading Corp., Inc. v. CA, 620 SCRA 315 (2010)Exception: Correction of Clerical Error.

11.3. Pea Ping Wee v. Lee Hiong Wee, 629 SCRA 145 (2010)

Exception: The court may consider supervening events or facts or circumstances which

transpired after judgment has become final and executory which makes execution of judgment

unfair and unjust.

11.4. League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, 628 SCRA 819 (2010)

Exception: Even if a judgment has already been entered as final, the court is allowed to

accept further submission and to alter the judgment to avoid injustice.


20/38

12. Writ of Execution

12.1. Parel v. Prudencio, 644 SCRA 496 (2011)

This case reiterates the ruling in Banaga v. Majaducon, 494 SCRA 153 (2006) which held that a writ ofexecution may be appealed in the following instances:

1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties

making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt

from execution; 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject of the judgment of the court; 5)

the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it

appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued; or that it is defective in substance, or is

issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writwas issued without authority.

12.2. Golden Sun Finance Corp. v. Marmito, A.M. No. P-11-2888, July 27, 2011

Can a mortgaged property be levied on execution?

A realty which has been mortgaged may stil l be levied on execution for the satisfact ion of the judgment

obligation. Reason: The beneficial owner remains to be the mortgagor. (See Sec. 9 (b) Rule 39, R.C.)Note: In Coya v. Manquil, 481 Phil. 488 (2004) the sheriff levied upon the mortgaged property of

judgment-debtor; the sheriff was administratively found culpable because he did not previously check

whether judgment-debtor had personal properties which should first be levied on.


21/38

PART TWO

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

I. Leviste v. Alameda, 626 SCRA 515 (August 3, 2010)

A. Facts:

1. Leviste was charged of Homicide; he posted bail.

2. Private complainants, with the conformity of theprosecutor, moved, for reinvestigation to determine theproper offense. RTC granted the motion.

3. Leviste filed a MR on the Order allowing the

reinvestigation but was denied. Leviste filed a petition forcertiorari with CA questioning the order of the RTC denyinghis MR and prayed for injunctive relief.


22/38

Facts of Leviste Case, continuation

4. Despite the filing of the petition for certiorari, the prosecutionconducted the reinvestigation. Leviste refused to participate on theground that it would compromise his petition for certiorari.

5. Without receiving any new evidence or considering any new matter,

the prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause for murderagainst Leviste.

6. Without conducting a new preliminary investigation, prosecutor filed amotion to amend and attaching the Amended Information chargingLeviste with murder.

7. The RTC granted the motion and admitted the Amended Informationfor murder. The court then issued a warrant of arrest against Leviste andthen set the case for arraignment.


23/38

Facts of Leviste Case, continuation

8. Leviste filed a motion to conduct a judicial inquiry to

determine probable cause for murder. The court denied

the motion.

9. Leviste was arraigned but he refused to make a plea.

The court entered a plea of not guilty for him, Levistethen filed a petition for bail. This was granted because

after hearing the court determined that the evidence of

guilt was not strong. He posted the bail of Php

300,000.00.


24/38

B. Issues and Rulings

Issue No. 1 After an information has already been filed, can a private

complainant, with the consent of the prosecutor, move for reinvestigation?

Contentions of Leviste:

a) Only the accused can ask for a reinvestigation.

b) The remedy of the offended party is not to ask for reinvestigation but to appealthe resolution of the prosecutor to the DOJ on a petition for review.

Rulings:

a) There is no rule that prohibits the private complainant through the prosecutorto ask the court to allow the prosecutor to reinvestigate the criminal case. In factit is the duty of the prosecutor handling the case to do that if he finds a necessityfor it.

It is also discretionary for the court to grant or deny a motion forreinvestigation.

b) Reinvestigation and appeal are alternative remedies; they are not mutuallyexclusive.


25/38

Issues and Rulings, continuation

Issue No. 2 In a reinvestigation of a criminal charge, is itnecessary that additional evidence or new matters should beintroduced to justify an upgrading of the criminal charge?

Contention of LevisteIt is necessary.

RulingIn a reinvestigation the presentation of additional or newevidence is not an indispensable requirement In factreinvestigation simply means a proceeding whereby theprosecution reviews or reevaluates the evidence on hand to findout whether its first determination was correct or not.


26/38


Issue No. 3 Was it legal and proper for the RTC to act upon the motion toamend information, admit the amended information and set the arraignment overthe objection of Leviste on the ground that his petition for certiorari has not yetbeen resolved?

Ruling - Yes, because the CA did not issue a TRO much less a WPI. In fact theRTC was under obligation to continue the proceedings absent any TRO or WPIrestraining it.

Issue No. 4 Was the amendment of the Information upgrading homicide tomurder a substantial or formal amendment? (If it is substantial, it would require anew preliminary investigation.)

Rulings: a) Substantial, citing Dionaldo v. Dacuycuy, 108 SCRA 736, 738 (1981),which pronounced that an amendment of a charge from homicide to murder is nota matter of form; it is one of substance with very serious consequence. (Obiter

Dictum)b) However, when the amendment was the result of reinvestigation in which nonew matter or new evidence was introduced but the proceeding consisted only inreevaluating the evidence or record, a new preliminary investigation does notserve any useful purpose.


27/38


Issue No. 5 Is a motion for judicial inquiry to determine probable cause a

necessary remedy of an accused?RulingA motion for determination of probable cause by the court is a superfluity.Whether there is a motion or not, the court is duty bound to conduct a judicialinquiry.

Issue No. 6 When Leviste participated in the arraignment and went through theprocess of trial, did he in effect waive his right to question the regularity of thepreliminary investigation or reinvestigation and his arrest?Ruling Levistes actions or omissions did not amount to a waiver of his right toquestion the legality of his arrest and the regularity of his preliminary investigation.

The principle that after arraignment, an accused is precluded from questioning theillegality of his arrest or irregularity in the preliminary investigation applies only ifhe voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial without previously

invoking his objection thereto.(Bartongan v. Pena, 538 SCRA 221 [2007])In this case Leviste did not voluntarily enter a plea precisely because he

questioned the regularity of the preliminary investigation.


28/38

II. PEOPLE V. SANDIGANBAYAN,

665 SCRA 1 (2012)

Facts:

Accused was charged before the SB with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices

Act. After trial, he was acquitted. The People filed with SC a petition for certiorari (R65)

assailing the decision of acquittal as having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The grave abuse of discretion consisted of the alleged

failure of the SB to consider the evidence showing bad faith of the accused in his refusal topay the RATA of the complainant.

Ratio Decedendi:

An erroneous evaluation of the evidence constitutes error in the exercise of jurisdiction

which is correctible by appeal. A petition for certiorari deals only with errors in jurisdiction

which is lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ofjurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed.


29/38

People v. Sandiganbayan, continuation

Obiter Dicta:1. Generally, only a decision of conviction can be the subject of review by theappellate court. Allowing a review of a decision of acquittal is offensive to theconstitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy.

Exception: Petition for certiorari which attacks the validity of a decision ofacquittal on jurisdictional grounds.

2. There are 3 modes of review of a decision of the trial court in a criminal caseby the SC:

a) Ordinary appeal (notice of appeal) under sec. 3, Rule 122, R.C.;

(Note: This rule has been superseded by People v. Mateo and theimplementing circular of the SC)

b) Petition for review on certiorari (R 45)

c) Petition for certiorari (R 65)


30/38

People v. Sandiganbayan, continuation

3. Differences Between the Different Modes of Review:

a) Ordinary Appeal

SC reviews factual and legal issues whether raised or not provided that they are material in

the resolution of the case.

b) Petition for Review on Certiorari (R 145)SCs review is generally limited to the review of legal issues raised by the parties; the court

determines whether a correct application of the law was made by the trial court on a given set

of facts

c) Petition for Certiorari (R 65)

SC determines the propriety of the trial court s jurisdiction whether it has jurisdiction over thecase and if it has, whether the exercise of that jurisdiction was attended by grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.


31/38


32/38

Ab el lana v. Peop le, cont in uat ion

Judgment (dispositive portion) of the trial court:

1. Abellana was sentenced to imprisonment.

2. Abellana was ordered to secure reconveyance ofthe lot from the third person and convey it to the

Alonto spouses. Once, the Alonto spouses werefully restored of the lot, they should pay the accusedP130,000.00, the cost of the lot plus legal interest.

3. However, if accused fails to restore full ownership

and possession of the lot to the Alontos within 6months, Abellana should pay the AlontosP1,103,000.00 plus P115,000.00 attorneys feesand damages.


33/38

Abel lana v. People, cont inuat ion

Ruling of the CA:

1. It was wrong for the trial court to find Abellana guilty ofthe crime of violation of Art. 172 (i) in relation to Art.171 (2), RPC because that was not the crime charged;

what was charged was violation of Art. 171 (i), RPC.The information should have charged violation of Art.171 (2). (Causing it to appear that persons haveparticipated in any act or proceeding when they didnot in fact so participate) The decision violated theright of Abellana to be informed of the accusationagainst him.

2. However, the civil liability portion of the appealeddecision was affirmed.


34/38

Abel lana v. Peop le, cont in uat ion

Ruling of the SC:

1. The CA was correct in acquitting Abellana.

2. The CA was wrong and sustaining the civil liability imposed by thetrial judge. Reasons:

a) The Deed of Sale was signed by the Alontos but since they did notappear before the Notary Public for the notarization of the deed, thedeed did not become a public document and so it was just a privatedocument. A private document is a valid deed of conveyance of a realproperty. Therefore, Abellana became the rightful owner and has theright to sell the lot to the third person. So there was no estafa.

b) There can be no civil liability because the Alontos did not suffer anyactual damage. The sale was valid and so they validly conveyed the lotto Abellana.

c) The judgment which required Abellana to do something or if he fails topay a certain amount is in the nature of alternative judgments which isnot allowed.


35/38

IV. YAMBOT V. TUGUERRO, 640 SCRA

249 (MARCH 23, 2011)A . Facts :

Judge Cruz, Jr. filed a libel case against a reporter and membersof the editorial staff of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) for thenews item in that newspaper that Judge Cruz, Jr. was facing acharge of sexual harassment before the SC which he claimed tobe untrue. The prosecutor who conducted the preliminaryinvestigation found probable cause. The information for libel wasfiled. The PDI respondents appealed the resolution of theprosecutor to the DOJ. The DOJ sustained the resolution of the

prosecutor and dismissed the petition of the PDI respondents.The PDI respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Courtof Appeals questioning the decision of the DOJ. The CAdismissed the petition and sustained the DOJ.


36/38

B. Issu e and Rul ing

Issue Is certiorari proper to question the resolution of the DOJ

after the information has already been filed in court.

Ruling:

1. In Advincula v. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 589 (2000), the

Court ruled that once an Information is filed in court, petition forcertiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the resolution of

the DOJ in a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor

is not a proper remedy. Anyone aggrieved by the resolution of

DOJ should bring that matter to the trial court which has

discretion on the disposition of the criminal action filed with it.For example, the aggrieved party can file a motion to quash the

information, or demurrer to evidence after prosecutor has

presented its case.


37/38

Yambot v. Tug uerro, con t inu at ion

2. Advincula however cannot be read completely to disallow the

institution of certiorari against the DOJ Secretarys

determination of probable cause when the information hasalready been filed in court. It cited Mendoza-Arce v.Ombudsman, 481 SCRA 609 (2006) where the SC stated thateven if an information has already been filed, the Resolutionof the DOJ Secretary can still be the subject of certiorari under

the following circumstances:

a) when necessary to afford adequate protection to theconstitutional rights of the accused;

b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice;

c) when the act of the officer is without or in excess of authority;d) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the

lust for vengeance;

e) no clear prima facie case against the accused.


38/38

V. ANGELES V. GAITE, 648 SCRA 309

(MARCH 23, 2011)

1. Judge Angeles appealed the Resolution of the DOJ Secretaryto the Office of the President. The appeal was dismissedbecause Memorandum Circular No. 58 of the O.P. allows such

appeal only when the offense involved is punishable by reclusionperpetua to death.

2. The proper remedy of Judge Angeles was to have filed apetition for certiorari before the CA but this she could no longerdo because 60 days from notice of the resolution sought to be

nullified has already expired. Note that, the filing of the petitionfor review with the O.P. did not toll the running of thereglementary period to file a certiorari.

Documents

Justice Hilarion Aquino Update in Remedial Law-february 16, 2013