10. Manuel vs Alfeche | Lawsuit

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 0 | Pages: 2

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Related documents
  DELIA MANUEL vs. JUDGE DAVID ALFECHE, JR., in his capacity as thenPresiin! J !e #$ R%C, Re!i#n &i', (ranch )*, R#'as City, FELIPECELIN+, DANN FAJARD+ an LEMUEL FERNANDE-, resp#nents.G.R. N#. ))*/0J 1y 2, )33FAC%&4 On January 9, 1992, the City Prosecutor of Roxas led with the Regional TrialCourt an Inforation for li!el against the writer and editors of the news a er#Panay $ews%# &aid a er has considera!le circulation in Panay Island andthroughout 'estern (isayas% The Inforation alleged that the accused caused to u!lish an article on the front age with the headline #)OC*) &+*- P.//).R$O' * 0I))IO$*R.# that accused coneyed in said article false i utationsand alicious insinuations against the said /.)I* 0*$-.), that she is thealleged #&+*- 3-..$# in 'estern (isayas% The Inforation further alleged thatas a direct conse4uence of the u!lication of the said article, 0anuel su5eredactual, oral and exe lary daages in the aount of T.$ 0I))IO$ P.&O&617,777,777%778% *fter trial, the RTC udge rendered the assailed /ecision nding three of theaccused guilty and ac4uitting a fourth% +oweer, #6t8he ciil indenity !y way of oral daages 6was8 disissed for lac: of urisdiction# on the ground that etitioner did not ay the ling fees therefor%Reconsideration haing !een denied, etitioner sought to oerturn the a!oedisissal ia the instant etition for reiew on certiorari under Rule ;<% The accused argued that since the 4uestioned decision is a nal udgent, thea ro riate reedy should hae !een ordinary a eal and not a eal !ycertiorari% +aing led an a eal with the Court of * eals, the accusedcontended that this etition !efore the &u ree Court was re=ature% I&&UE&4 1% 'hether or not there was a need to ay the ling and doc:et fees !y reason of non=s eciation of the aounts of daages2% 'hether or not the 4uestioned decision is re=ature RULING4 1% >es% 'hen a ciil action is deeed i liedly instituted with the criinal actionin accordance with &ection 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court ? !ecause theo5ended arty has $OT waied the ciil action, or resered the right to instituteit se arately, or instituted the ciil action rior to the criinal action ? the rule isas [email protected] i) when the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in thecomplaint or information led in court, then the corresponding ling fees  shall be paid by the oended party upon the ling thereof in court for trial; 2% >es% &ince riate res ondents herein had already ta:en an a eal to theCourt of * eals to 4uestion the trial courtAs udgent of coniction, the ro erreedy for etitioner is si ly ordinary a eal to the said tri!unal% The award of oral and exe lary daages !y the trial court is inextrica!lylin:ed to and necessarily de endent u on the factual nding of !asis therefor,iB%, the existence of the crie li!el% Inasuch as the ery sae /ecision hereinassailed is already ending reiew !y the Court of * eals, there is a distinct ossi!ility that the said court ay, if the facts and the law warrant, reerse thetrial court and ac4uit the accused% In such eent, the a ellate courtAs actionwould lead to a!surdity and confusion in the ultiate dis osition of the case%O!iously, this ossi!ility ust !e aoided at all cost% This is 6at least artly8 theraison dAetre for the rule against foru=sho ing% Clearly, then, etitioner oughtto hae !rought her challenge in the Court of * eals%Petition disissed for utter lac: of erit%
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks