You are on page 1of 1

[LEG METH | SANCHEZ | D2017]

Date Title Ponente Doctrine

Mar 19 2002 Villanueva Jr v Court of Appeals J. De Leon Obiter Dictum

FACTS Petitioner is charged with falsification of public documents used in a abor arbitration for illegal dismissal. P sought to amend the information to show that he is the offended party in this case granted by RTC on Oct 1997 After a protracted series of motions and appeals, the CA pronounced in CA-GR SP No 46103 that said amended information introduced by P is annulled; that petitioner is NOT the offended party, rather it was IBC 13 (former employer) who was prejudiced since it was them who purchased the fake surety bond that P produced in the arbitration. P is now filing for certiorari against said pronouncement on the basis that CA pronouncement was a mere obiter dictum ISSUES WoN the pronouncement that P is not the offended party is an obiter dictum HELD PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACKING MERIT Is the pronouncement that P is not the offended party is an obiter dictum? o NO. Said pronouncement was a response to the matter raised by the respondents in the amendment of the information sought by petitioner. It has been held that the adjudication of pertinent questions of law, as in the present case (WoN the information that Villanueva Jr is an offended party should be admitted), cannot be considered obiter dictum and is thus part of the ratio decidendi.

Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty

You might also like