Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Uy v. Contreras

Uy v. Contreras

Ratings: (0)|Views: 360|Likes:
Published by Manuel Rodriguez II

More info:

Published by: Manuel Rodriguez II on Jul 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Civil Procedure Case digestManuel A. Rodriguez IIFEU
Institute of Law
Uy v. Contreras237 SCRA 167Facts:
Petitioner Felicidad Uy subleased from respondent Susanna Atayde the other half of thesecond floor of a building. She operated therein a beauty parlor. The sublease contractexpired; however, the petitioner was not able to remove all her personal properties.An argument arose between the petitioner and Atayde when the former sought towithdraw from the premises her remaining properties. The argument degenerated intoa scuffle between the petitioner, on the one hand,
and Atayde and several of Atayde’s
employees, including private respondent Winnie Javier.Respondent had themselves medically examined for the alleged injuries inflicted onthem by the petitioner. Respondents filed a complaint with the Barangay. Theconfrontation of the parties was scheduled by the Barangay, only petitioner appeared.The Barangay then reset the confrontation.The office of provincial prosecutor filed two informations for slight physical injuriesagainst the petitioner with MTC. Respondent MTC Judge ordered the petitioner tosubmit her counter-affidavit and those of her witnesses.Petitioner submitted and specifically alleged the prematurity of filing of the case forfailure to undergo conciliation proceedings.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. Respondent Judge Contreras denied the motion.Same as the MR. Petition filed a special civil action for certiorari in the SC.
Whether respondent Judge Contreras abused his discretion.
Yes.In the proceedings before the court, petitioner and respondent had in mind only PD1508. None knew of the repeal of the decree by the Local Government Code of 1991.The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor should have exerted enough diligence to inquirefrom respondents if prior referral to the lupon was necessary. Respondent Judge did not

Activity (22)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Jack Jamero Jr liked this
Mark Abilo liked this
Deus Dulay liked this
Reen Fabia liked this
Don245 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->