You are on page 1of 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CAPOTE G.R. No. 157043, 2 February 2007, FIRST DIVISION (Corona, J.) Trinidad R. A.

Capote filed a petition for change of name of her ward from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. Publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation was likewise ordered. The trial court also directed that the local civil registrar be notified and that the OSG be sent a copy of the petition and order. Since there was no opposition, Capote moved for leave of court to present her evidence ex parte. The OSG did not object; hence, the lower court granted the motion. After the reception of evidence, the trial court ordered the change of name from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. The Republic, through the OSG, filed an appeal with a lone assignment of error: the court a quo erred in granting the petition in a summary proceeding. The CA affirmed the RTC. ISSUE: Whether the petition for change of name can be granted in a summary proceeding. No. It is adversarial. Whether Capote has complied with the requirements for an adversarial proceeding. Yes. HELD: Petition DENIED. The OSG is correct in stating that a petition for change of name must be heard in an adversarial proceeding. A petition for change of name under Rule 103 cannot be decided through a summary proceeding. A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Capote gave notice of the petition through publication as required by the rules. With this, all interested parties were deemed notified and the whole world considered bound by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court gave due notice to the OSG by serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties, including the Republic as represented by the OSG, were afforded the opportunity to contest the petition. The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. Considering that the OSG neither opposed the petition nor the motion to present its evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower court were not adversarial enough.

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY vs COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS G.R. No. 142601, 23 October 2006, SECOND DIVISION (Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.) There has been an existing boundary dispute between the Municipality of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan and the City of Caloocan. Sangguniang Bayan of San Jose del Monte passed resolutions in order to settle the conflict. DENR conducted a relocation survey. The Comprehensive Report states that the San Jose del Monte Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions contradict the delineation embodied in SWO-41615 of the Tala Estate allotted by the government mainly for housing and resettlement site under the administration of the NHA. The municipality of San Jose del Monte filed a complaint with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against petitioner NHA. They alleged that their properties are within the Municipality of San Jose del Monte. The COSLAP rendered its Resolution ruling that the correct boundary between respondents San Jose del Monte and Caloocan City is that specified in the Resolutions of the Sangguniang Bayan. The Municipality of San Jose del Monte filed with the COSLAP a motion for execution which was subsequently granted. NHA then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari which was dismissed. NHA then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. ISSUE: Whether the COSLAP has jurisdiction over the boundary dispute between respondent municipality and Caloocan City. No. HELD: Petition GRANTED. Administrative agencies, like the COSLAP, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and as such could wield only such as are specifically granted to them by the enabling statutes. There is no provision in Executive Order No. 561 that COSLAP has jurisdiction over boundary dispute between two local government units. Under Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code, the respective legislative councils of the contending local government units have jurisdiction over their boundary disputes. The COSLAP does not have jurisdiction over the boundary dispute between San Jose del Monte and Caloocan City.

PONCE vs NLRC G.R. No. 158244, 9 August 2005, SECOND DIVISION (Chico-Nazario, J.) Innodata revised its policy on tardiness and absenteeism and came out with the Revised 1998 Absenteeism and Tardiness Policy (1998 Revised Policy). After exhausting the remedies available in the existing Grievance Machinery, the Innodata Employees Association and Innodata agreed to submit the issue to voluntary arbitration. During the pendency of the resolution on the validity of the 1998 Revised Policy, Innodata terminated the employment of Ponce and Balignasay. The Voluntary Arbitrator declared the 1998 Revised Policy as null and void. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator and affirmed the validity of the 1998 Revised Policy on the ground that it was a valid exercise of management prerogative. On appeal, this Court affirmed with finality the Court of Appeals decision. Ponce and Balignasay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Innodata. According to petitioners, their dismissal was illegal considering that the 1998 Revised Policy under which their dismissal from employment was based was, at that time, still subject of voluntary arbitration and which in fact was later nullified. Labor Arbiter rendered a decision stating that the dismissal of petitioners was illegal. The Second Division of the NLRC reversed the arbiters decision and held that petitioners were validly terminated. Both parties moved to reconsider the NLRC Decision. The NLRC denied only the motion for reconsideration filed by Innodata, without any mention as to that of petitioners. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals can take cognizance of the petition for certiorari filed by Innodata assailing solely the portion of the NLRCs Decision awarding financial assistance to the petitioners while the latters motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision remained unresolved by the said Commission. HELD: Petition DENIED. The Court of Appeals correctly assumed jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari filed by Innodata notwithstanding the pendency of the petitioners motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. Petitioners, in their Comment to said petition, did not limit their arguments to the alleged prematurity of said petition, but rather zealously argued the illegality of their dismissal as well. Patently, petitioners had of their own accord submitted the entire case to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, which jurisdiction they cannot now conveniently assail as estoppel had already set in. common sense and logic dictate that such a denial carries the effect of denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. [A] party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.