Pobre vs. CA

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463
2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case

before it. In any case, the Court may disregard petitioner’s lapse
and treat the present petition as one for review under Rule 45.
This is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of
Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if
the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a
petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3)
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. The
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals petition in this case actually asserts errors of judgment committed
by the CA, which are proper in a petition for review, and it is
*
G.R. No. 141805. July 8, 2005. settled that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and
the character of the relief sought that determine the nature of an
GENEVIEVE C. POBRE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF action.
APPEALS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, San Jose, Same; Same; Bail; While an accused charged with a capital
Occidental Mindoro, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and offense is not entitled to bail at any time during trial when the
ANDREW OVALLES, respondents. evidence of guilt is strong, it does not mean, however, that a grant
thereof can be questioned any time and without regard to the
period of filing provided by the Rules of Court.—Petitioner argues
Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Parties; Criminal Law;
that the CA erred in dismissing her petition for certiorari on the
Parricide; The sister of the deceased has legal standing to file a
ground that it was filed out of time. She believes that the filing
petition for certiorari in a criminal case for parricide as she is a
thereof is not subject to the period prescribed by Rule 65 of the
party-litigant who is akin to the “offended party,” she being a close
Rules of Court because of Rule 114, Sec. 7 thereof, which states:
relative of the deceased.—Initially, the Court recognizes the legal
“(N)o person charged with the capital offense, or an offense
standing of herein petitioner as she is the victim’s sister. In
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
Narcisco vs. Romana-Cruz, involving the crime of parricide, the
admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of
Court sustained the legal standing of the sister of the deceased to
the stage of the criminal prosecution.” According to petitioner, a
file a petition for certiorari as she is a party-litigant who is akin to
null and void order granting bail cannot reach finality any time
the “offended party,” she being a close relative of the deceased.
during the stage of the criminal prosecution and may be
questioned on appeal or petition for review even if filed beyond
_______________ the reglementary period. The Court cannot sustain petitioner’s
argument. It is true that under Rule 114, Sec. 7 of the Rules of
* SECOND DIVISION.
Court, an accused charged with a capital offense is not entitled to
bail at any time during trial when the evidence of guilt is strong.
51 It does not mean however that since the accused is not entitled to
bail at any
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 51 52
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; A petition for review 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, is the
proper remedy in assailing final dispositions of a case before the
Court of Appeals.—The Court also notes that petitioner filed a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of stage of the trial, a grant thereof can be questioned any time and
Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition without regard to the period of filing provided by the Rules of
for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Court.
Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15

Same; Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice; Interlocutory statute, should be retroactively applied.—Strictly speaking, the
Orders; Words and Phrases; An order granting bail is an CA did not err in dismissing the special civil action for certiorari
interlocutory order; The word “interlocutory” refers to something for having been filed out of time. At the time the CA dismissed the
intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit petition filed before it on December 22, 1998, Section 4, Rule 65,
which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, provides
the whole controversy; The 60-day period within which to file a that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be
special civil action for certiorari was specifically set to avoid any interrupted by the filing of a motion for reconsideration or new
unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of trial. In the event that the motion is denied, the petitioner had
parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.—An order granting only the remaining period within which to file the petition.
bail is an interlocutory order. The word interlocutory refers to However, with the issuance of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC on September
something intervening between the commencement and the end of 1, 2000, amending Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to wit: “SEC. 4.
a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final When and where petition filed.—The petition shall be filed not
decision of the whole controversy. In that sense, it does not attain later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
court with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60)
court issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the motion. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it
assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a special relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as board or officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
amended, can be considered an appropriate remedy to assail the jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
same. However, Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, as Court. In may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not
amended, prescribes a period of 60 days within which to file a the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
special civil action for certiorari. The 60-day period was Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate involves the acts or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be
case. Such right to a speedy disposition of the case pertains not filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. No extension
only to a private complainant in a criminal case, but to an accused of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling
as well. While the periods set by law are technical rules of reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.” The petition
procedure, these are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. filed before the CA should now be considered as timely filed. In
These are provided to effect the proper and orderly disposition of PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Emily Rose Go Ko, the Court,
cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. citing Narzoles vs. NLRC, ruled that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a
Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within curative statute should be retroactively applied.
which certain acts must be done, have oft been held as absolutely
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the
Court of Appeals.
orderly and speedy discharge of business. The reason for rules of
this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules Crispin P. Perez, Jr. for respondent Ovalles.
governing practice. Such rules are a necessary incident to the The Solicitor General for the People.
proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions.
54
53

VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 53 Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Same; Same; A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, issued on 1 September
2000, amending Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, being a curative
In an Information dated May 8, 1998, private respondent scheduled hearing, Atty. Mario G. Aglipay filed his entry of
Andrew Ovalles was charged before the Regional Trial appearance for private complainant Genevieve C. Pobre,
Court of San Jose (Branch 46), Occidental Mindoro, with the victim’s sister (herein petitioner). Atty. Aglipay prayed
the crime of Parricide, committed as follows: that he be given ten days within which to file his opposition
to the motions, and that the hearing be re-set to July 10,
“That on or about the 18th day of October, 1997, at around 1:46 1998. Judge Pagayatan, however, pushed through with the
o’clock in the morning, in Barangay Pag-asa, San Jose, Occidental hearing on June 26, 1998 and treated private respondent’s
Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this motions as one to fix bail. During the hearing, Fiscal
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there Salcedo informed the court that Atty. Aglipay was not able
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill and with to come to the hearing because he was left by the boat
abuse of superior strength and in the course of their quarrel, did going to Mindoro, and that Atty. Aglipay was asking that
then and there pushed Alma Casaclang-Ovalles, his legitimate the hearing be re-set to Friday. Counsel for the defense,
spouse, causing her to fall, her head hitting the hard floor and however, stated that it is the government prosecutor who
thereby inflicting upon her fatal injury, rendering her controls the prosecution of the case. Judge Pagayatan then
unconscious which caused her1
death shortly thereafter. asked Fiscal Salcedo if he was willing to submit the
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” motions for resolution, to which the latter acceded. The
motions were then considered submitted for resolution. On
Assistant Prosecutor Levitico F. Salcedo recommended bail
the same day, private respondent posted a property bond.
in the amount of P200,000.00, but a copy of the Information
It was on June 29, 1998, that Judge Pagayatan issued
attached to the records of this case shows a cancellation of
an order granting private respondent’s9 motion to fix bail,
the amount and the words “no bail” were annotated
2
with the amount fixed at P40,000.00. Judge Pagayatan
therein. Judge Ernesto F. Pagayatan issued an order of
also issued an order on the same day approving private
arrest on May 15, 1998, with the recommended bail of 10
respondent’s property bond.
P200,000.00 likewise canceled and “no bail” written
3
On July 10, 1998, private respondent was arraigned and
thereon. When the warrant was returned unserved, Judge4 11
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Pagayatan issued an alias order of arrest on June 3, 1998.
Private respondent was arrested in Quezon City on June 8,
1998, and committed to the Municipal Jail of San Jose, _______________
5
Occidental Mindoro on the same day. 6 Id., p. 27.
7 Id., pp. 37-40.
_______________ 8 Id., p. 43.
1 Records, p. 1.
9 Id., pp. 55-58.
2 Id., p. 2.
10 Id., p. 59.
3 Id., p. 21.
11 Id., p. 71.
4 Id., p. 25.
56
5 Id., p. 26.
55 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 55
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals Atty. Aglipay filed an Omnibus Motion on July 30, 1998,
contesting the Order dated June 29, 1998 granting bail,
Private respondent filed a Motion to Quash the which12 Order was received by Atty. Aglipay on July 17,
6
Information, and a Manifestation and Motion praying that 1998. Atty. Aglipay prayed for the inhibition of both Judge
in the event the Motion to Quash7 is denied, the same be Pagayatan and Fiscal Salcedo from the case; that the case
treated as a motion to admit bail. Hearing on the motions be re-raffled to another sala and prosecuted by another 13
8
was scheduled on June 26, 1998. On the day of the public prosecutor; and that the Information be amended.

According to the private prosecutor, there is a need to January 1999,

16
to be resumed only after the designation of a
amend the Information to read, as follows: new judge.
On December 11, 1998, herein petitioner filed a special
“That on or about the 17th day of October, 1997, at around 11 civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA),
o’clock on the evening, or thereabouts, in Barangay Pag-asa, San docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49878, questioning the Order
Jose, Occidental, Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction dated June 29, 1998, issued by Judge Pagayatan. The CA
17
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and dismissed the petition per its Resolution dated December
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assaulted with intent 22, 1998, to wit:
to kill and inflicted fatal head and brain injury upon her 18
legitimate spouse, Alma Casaclang-Ovalles, causing her death Petition for review having been filed late, the appeal
19
is deemed
shortly thereafter on October 18 1997 at around 1:46 o’clock in the ABANDONED and hereby ordered DISMISSED.
morning or thereabout. 14
20
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” A motion for reconsideration was filed but the CA denied
it in its Resolution dated February 7, 212000 for the reason
Petitioner contends that the previous Information, which that the petition was filed 83 days late.
states in part: Thereafter, petitioner filed the present petition for
certiorari, arguing that:
. . . with intent to kill and with abuse of superior strength and in
the course of their quarrel, did then and there pushed Alma
_______________
Casaclang-Ovalles, his legitimate spouse, causing her to fall, her
head hitting the hard floor and thereby inflicting upon her fatal 15 Id., p. 116.
injury, rendering her unconscious which caused her death shortly 16 Id., p. 103.
thereafter. 17 Per Associate Justice Jesus M. Elbinias, with Associate Justices
Eugenio S. Labitoria and Marina L. Buzon, concurring.
limits the prosecution in presenting evidence that will
18 Should be petition for certiorari.
prove that private respondent had intent to kill his wife by
19 CA Rollo, p. 76.
pushing her.
20 Per Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, with Associate Justices
Hearing on the motion was held on August 28, 1998.
Marina L. Buzon and Candido V. Rivera, concurring.
21 Id., pp. 132-133.
_______________
58
12 Id., p. 74.
13 Id., pp. 74-88.
14 Rollo, p. 24. 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
57
I
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 57
THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION SEEKING THE
ANNULMENT OF THE ORDER ADMITTING THE ACCUSED
ON BAIL IS A LEGAL ERROR IN THAT THE PETITION IS
On September 28, 1998, Judge Pagayatan issued an order NOT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE REGLAMENTARY (sic)
granting the motion to inhibit and ordering the raffle of the PERIOD CONSIDERING THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT
case to the other sala of the court, but the motion to set 15 ENTITLED TO BAIL “REGARDLESS OF THE STAGE OF THE
aside the Order dated June 29, 1998 was denied. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.”
Consequently, the case was raffled to Branch 45 of the
Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. II
However, during the hearing on November 26, 1998,
proceedings were temporarily deferred due to the THE ENTIRE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE IS A GREAT
impending retirement of the judge assigned to Branch 45 in PRESUMPTION THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE

CRIME OF PARRICIDE. deceased to file a petition for certiorari as she is a party-

litigant who is akin to the “offended party,” she being a
III close relative of the deceased.
The Court also notes that petitioner filed a special civil
THERE IS A NEED TO AMEND THE INFORMATION.
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
IV instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition
for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing
THERE WAS MANIFEST PARTIALITY IN THE ACCUSED’S the CA Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated
FAVOR RENDERING ALL THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE September 7, 2000, considering that these are final
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
22
AND THE TRIAL COURT NULL AND dispositions of the case before it. In any case, the Court
VOID AB INITIO. may disregard petitioner’s lapse and treat the present
petition as one for review under Rule 45. This is in
The Court gave due course to the petition and required the
accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of
parties to submit their respective memoranda. Accordingly,
Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially
petitioner filed her Memorandum. The Office of the
(1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period
Solicitor General, in behalf of the People of the Philippines,
for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are
filed its Memorandum. However, private respondent,
averred; and (3) there25is sufficient reason to justify the
despite several extensions granted by the Court, failed to
relaxation of the rules. The petition in this case actually
file his memorandum.
asserts errors of judgment committed by the CA, which are
In a Resolution dated April 25, 2005, the Court declared 26
proper in a petition for review, and it is settled
private respondent’s counsel guilty of contempt of court
under Rule 71, Section 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, as
_______________
amended, and his arrest and detention were 23
ordered until
he complies and pays the fine of P4,000.00. In a Return of 24 Narcisco vs. Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No. 134504, March 17, 2000,
Order of Arrest dated May 25, 2005, the National Bureau 328 SCRA 505.
of Investigation 25 Oaminal vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 152776, October 8, 2003, 413 SCRA
189, 200.
_______________ 26 Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124554, December 9, 1997, 282 SCRA 553, 572.
22 Rollo, pp. 16-17.
23 Id., pp. 215-218. 60
59
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 59 Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and
the character of the relief sought that determine the nature
(NBI) Calapan District Office informed the Court that 27
of an action.
private respondent’s counsel, Atty. Crispin P. Perez,
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing her
voluntarily surrendered at the NBI Calapan District Office
petition for certiorari on the ground that it was filed out of
on May 24, 2005. Atty. Perez likewise filed a Memorandum
time. She believes that the filing thereof is not subject to
for private respondent via courier on May 27, 2005,
the period prescribed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
together with a postal money order for P4,000.00,
because of Rule 114, Sec. 7 thereof, which states: “(N)o
representing the fine imposed on him.
person charged with the capital offense, or an offense
Initially, the Court recognizes the legal standing of
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
herein petitioner as she is the victim’s sister. In Narcisco
24 shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is
vs. Romana-Cruz, involving the crime of parricide, the
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.”
Court sustained the legal standing of the sister of the
According to petitioner, a null and void order granting bail
cannot reach finality any time during the stage of the procedure, these are not designed to frustrate the ends of
criminal prosecution and may be questioned on appeal or justice. These are provided to effect the proper and orderly
petition28 for review even if filed beyond the reglementary disposition of cases and34 thus effectively prevent the
period. clogging of court dockets. Rules of procedure, especially
The Court cannot sustain petitioner’s argument. It is those prescribing the time within which certain acts must
true that under Rule 114, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court, an be done, have oft been held as absolutely indispensable to
accused charged with a capital offense is not entitled to bail the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and
at any time during trial when the evidence of guilt is speedy discharge of business. The reason for rules of this
strong. It does not mean however that since the accused is nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would
not entitled to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without
can be questioned any time and without regard to the rules governing practice. Such rules are a necessary
period of filing provided by the Rules of Court. incident to the proper,
35
efficient and orderly discharge of
An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. The judicial functions.
word interlocutory refers to something intervening between
the commencement and the end of a suit which decides _______________
some point or 29
matter but is not a final decision of the whole
controversy. In that sense, it does not attain finality since 30 Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005, 455
there leaves something else to be done by the trial court SCRA 460.
with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial 31 Yutingco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137264, August 1, 2002, 386
court SCRA 85, 92.
32 Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution.
_______________
33 Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution.
34 Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001, 360
27 Supra., Oaminal case. SCRA 521, 528.
28 Rollo, p. 17. 35 Lazaro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137761, April 6, 2000, 330
29 Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December SCRA 208, 214.
13, 2004, 446 SCRA 166, 177.
62
61

VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 61
It is noted that the petition was filed late by 13 days, not 83
issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of days as computed by the CA. Petitioner received the Order
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the dated June 29, 1998 on July 17, 1998, and a motion
assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a contesting, among others, the grant of bail, was filed by her
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules on July 30, 1998. During this period, 13 days had already
of Court, as amended, can 30
be considered an appropriate passed. Given that petitioner received a copy of the Order
remedy to assail the same. dated September 28, 1998 denying her motion for
However, Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, as reconsideration on October 12, 1998, she had 47 days
amended, prescribes a period of 60 days within which to therefrom, or until November 28, 1998 within which to file
file a special civil action for certiorari. The 60-day period the petition. Since the petition was filed with the CA only
was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that on December 11, 1998, 13 days had lapsed.
would violate the constitutional31 rights of parties to a Thus, strictly speaking, the CA did not err in dismissing
speedy disposition of their case. Such right to a speedy the special civil action for certiorari for having been filed
disposition of the case pertains32 not only to a private out of time. At the time the CA dismissed the petition filed
complainant
33
in a criminal case, but to an accused as before it on December 22, 1998, Section 4, Rule 65, of the
well. While the periods set by law are technical rules of Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, provides
that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari There is a need, therefore, to remand the case to the CA
shall be interrupted by the filing of a motion for for disposition of the issues raised by petitioner, which
reconsideration or new trial. In the event that the motion is were not resolved by it, namely: the propriety of the grant
denied, the petitioner had only the remaining period within of bail; the propriety of amending the Information; and the
which to file the petition. alleged nullity of the proceedings before the trial court due
38
However, with the issuance of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC on to the “manifest partiality” in favor of private respondent.
September 1, 2000, amending Rule 65 of the Rules of WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
Court, to wit: dated December 22, 1998 and February 7, 2000 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 49878 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is
“SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.—The petition shall be REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further
filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, proceedings on matters indicated in the text of this
order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new decision.
trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the SO ORDERED.
sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of
said motion. Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates Nazario, JJ., concur.
to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board
or officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
_______________
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. In may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not 36 G.R. No. 148641, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 586.
the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the 37 G.R. No. 141959, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 533.
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it 38 CA Rollo, pp. 11-18.
involves the acts or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
64
otherwise provided by law or these
63
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 63 Appeals
Resolutions set aside, case remanded to Court of Appeals for
rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the further proceedings.
Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except Notes.—The word “homicide” used in the special
for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.” complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is to be
understood in the generic sense as to include murder and
the petition filed before the CA should now be considered parricide. (People vs. Manalang, 170 SCRA 149 [1989])
as timely filed.
36
In PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs.37 Emily Abuse of superior strength cannot be considered by the
Rose Go Ko, the Court, citing Narzoles vs. NLRC, ruled mere fact that the husband is stronger than the wife.
that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a curative statute should (People vs. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218 [1994])
be retroactively applied.
The Omnibus Motion filed by Atty. Aglipay contesting ——o0o——
the grant of bail, is, in effect, a motion for reconsideration
of the June 29, 1998 order of Judge Pagayatan. This was
denied by the trial court per Order dated September 28,
1998. Petitioner received a copy thereof on October 12,
1998. Taking into account A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, the
petition filed on December 11, 1998, or on the 60th day
should then be considered filed on time. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15

Pobre vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pobre vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case

VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 51 52

Pobre vs. Court of Appeals

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

55 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15

According to the private prosecutor, there is a need to January 1999,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15

CRIME OF PARRICIDE. deceased to file a petition for certiorari as she is a party-

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15

You might also like