Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH
DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA (substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR.,
FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND
R. MARCOS, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by
his heirs), respondents. < G.R. No. 152375.December 13, 2011.*>
For a petition for certiorari to prosper, Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
requires among others that neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available to the aggrieved
party; Exception. As a matter of exception, the writ of certiorari may issue
notwithstanding the existence of an available alternative remedy, if such
remedy is inadequate or insufficient in relieving the aggrieved party of the
injurious effects of the order complained of.
Without clear showing that its action was a capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment affecting its exercise of jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayans
erroneous legal conclusion was only an error of judgment or at best an abuse
of discretion but not a grave one.
Depositions are not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in open
court of a party or witness.A deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery
whose primary function is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of
disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and affording an
adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial.
Section 47, Rule 130 explicitly requires inter alia, for the admissibility of a
former testimony or deposition that the adverse party must have had an
opportunity to cross-examine the witness or the deponent in the prior
proceeding.
The phrase unable to testify appearing in both Rule 23 and Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court refers to a physical inability to appear at the witness stand and
to give a testimony; Where the deposition is taken not for discovery
purposes, but to accommodate the deponent, then the deposition should be
rejected in evidence. The witness himself, if available, must be produced in
court as if he were testifying de novo since his testimony given at the former
trial is mere hearsay.
Same; Same; Same; The erroneous grant of relief by the Regional Trial Court
on appeal is but an exercise of jurisdiction by said courtthe ground for
annulment of the decision is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not
vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter; The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal when, instead
of simply dismissing the complaint and awarding any counterclaim for costs
due to the defendants, it ordered the lessors to execute a deed of absolute
sale in favor of the lessees, on the basis of its own interpretation of the
Contract of Lease which granted petitioners the option to buy the leased
premises within a certain period and for a fixed price