Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    HGL Development v. Penuela and Semirara Mining G.R. No. 181353 - June 06, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Crimson LAWst
    1) HGL filed two complaints against DENR and Semirara Mining regarding possession of land. 2) The RTC dismissed HGL's case against Semirara Mining, citing forum shopping. HGL's motion for reconsideration was denied, rendering the dismissal final and executory. 3) HGL then filed a petition for indirect contempt or certiorari with the CA. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper remedy was an appeal, as the dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits, making the case res judicata.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    HGL Development v. Penuela and Semirara Mining G.R. No. 181353 - June 06, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Crimson LAWst
    144 views2 pages
    1) HGL filed two complaints against DENR and Semirara Mining regarding possession of land. 2) The RTC dismissed HGL's case against Semirara Mining, citing forum shopping. HGL's motion for reconsideration was denied, rendering the dismissal final and executory. 3) HGL then filed a petition for indirect contempt or certiorari with the CA. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper remedy was an appeal, as the dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits, making the case res judicata.

    Original Description:

    full text

    Original Title

    Rule 42_Peroy_HGL v. Penuela

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) HGL filed two complaints against DENR and Semirara Mining regarding possession of land. 2) The RTC dismissed HGL's case against Semirara Mining, citing forum shopping. HGL's motion for reconsideration was denied, rendering the dismissal final and executory. 3) HGL then filed a petition for indirect contempt or certiorari with the CA. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper remedy was an appeal, as the dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits, making the case res judicata.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    144 views2 pages

    HGL Development v. Penuela and Semirara Mining G.R. No. 181353 - June 06, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Crimson LAWst
    1) HGL filed two complaints against DENR and Semirara Mining regarding possession of land. 2) The RTC dismissed HGL's case against Semirara Mining, citing forum shopping. HGL's motion for reconsideration was denied, rendering the dismissal final and executory. 3) HGL then filed a petition for indirect contempt or certiorari with the CA. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper remedy was an appeal, as the dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits, making the case res judicata.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    HGL Development v.

    Penuela and Semirara Mining


    G.R. No. 181353 | June 06, 2016
    Topic: Rule 42 Petition for Review from RTC-CA
    Digest: Ador Ray Peroy

    FACTS:
     HGL instituted 2 complaints:
    o RTC-Caloocan, an action against the DENR for specific performance and
    damages
    o RTC-Culasi an action against Semirara Mining for recovery of possession of the
    subject land and damages with prayer for TRO and/or writ of preliminary
    mandatory injunction
     Writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was rendered in favor of HGL and against
    Semirara
     As to the merits of the case:
    o Jul. 2007: RTC-Culasi, on Semirara’s motion, dismissed with prejudice the
    Semirara Case on ground of HGL’s Forum Shopping
    o Nov. 2007: MR denied
    o Became Final & Executory
     Feb. 2008: HGL filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt or for Certiorari with the CA
     Semirara opposed:
    o HGL is using the instant petition for contempt to circumvent the rule on time
    and revive the lost remedy of appeal
    o Pet. For Certiorari not proper

    ISSUE:
    WON HGL availed of the proper remedy.

    RULING: NO.

    Citing:
    Rule 41, Sec. 2. Modes of appeal.
    (a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial
    Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with
    the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof
    upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and
    other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such
    cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

    RULE 41, Sec. 3. Period of ordinary appeal; appeal in habeas corpus cases
    The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order
    appealed from.
    Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on
    appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order.
    However, an appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within forty-eight (48) hours from
    notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.

    The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.
    No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
    allowed. (As amended by SC Resolution, A.M. No. 01-1-03-SC, June 19, 2001)

    The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration.
    No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
    allowed. (As amended by SC Resolution, A.M. No. 01-1-03-SC, June 19, 2001)

    Here, there was an error of judgment commited in the RTC’s jurisdiction as to:
    1. The dismissal with prejudice of the Semirara Case on the ground of forum shopping
    constituted final judgment
    2. Denial of the MR

     The dismissal of the case on the ground of forum shopping was a final and executory
    judgment.
     Adjudication on the merits
     constitutes res judicata
     finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in
    the trial court

    You might also like