Writ of Amparo as discussed in the case of Mison v. Gallegos, 760 SCRA 363 [2015] The privilege of the writ of amparo is .an extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of Amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Synopsis: The court in Mison v. Gallegos (2015) discussed the privilege of the writ of amparo as an extraordinary remedy to address the concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. The court emphasized the need for judicious use of this remedy to prevent its indiscriminate filing for unsubstantiated claims. In the case of Ja Hoon Ku's petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo, the court found his allegations to be unf

G.R. No. 222980| March 20, 2017 LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. PARK N RIDE, INC./VICEST (PHILS.), INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE & ESTELITA B. JAVIER, respondents. Ponente: LEONEN, J.: Doctrines: At the onset, we stress that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if supported by substantial evidence and when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court when there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. In the present case, due to lack of any palpable error, mistake, or misappreciation of facts, this Court discerns no compelling reason to reverse the consistent findings of the appellate court and the labor tribunals. There is constructive dismissal when an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclo

Full Text:  See  https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63434 G.R. No. 180969, September 11, 2017, NOEL NAVAJA, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL A. DE CASTRO or his successor, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jagna & Gracia-Hernandez, Jagna, Bohol, and ATTY. EDGAR BORJE, respondents. Ponente : PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Doctrines: Section 1 of PD 1829 defines and penalizes the acts constituting the crime of obstruction of justice, the pertinent portions of which read:  Sec. 1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:  (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the id

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an

G.R. Nos. 205904-06. October 17, 2018. GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Full Text:   https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64755 Ponente:  A. REYES, JR., J.:  Doctrines: It bears emphasizing that in Genuino v. De Lima, 861 SCRA 325 (2018), the Court already declared as unconstitutional DOJ Circular No. 41 on the ground that it has no legal basis and held, thus: x x x To begin with, there is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. As it is, the only ground of the former DOJ Secretary in restraining the petitioners, at that time, was the pendency of the preliminary investigation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee on the complaint for electoral sabotage against them. To be clear, DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is n