Arba vs Nicolas

g.r. No 168394
Oct 6, 2008

Rule 45 compared to Rule 65

This Court has consistently elaborated on the difference between Rule 45 and 65
petitions. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an ordinary appeal.
It is a continuation of the case from the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts.
The petition must only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth
and discussed.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. It seeks to correct

errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one in which the act complained
of was issued by the court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of or
in excess of jurisdiction. The purpose of the remedy of certiorari is to annul void
proceedings; prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority; and
provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.

Republic vs BPI
G.R. No 203039
September 11, 2013

Rule when only a certain of the property is expropriated.

The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner of the condemned
property is entitled to is the market value. In such a case, the owner is not
restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, he is also entitled to
recover the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property.

No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages.

Consequentialdamages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffersfrom an impairment or decrease in value. The rules on
expropriation clearly provide a legal basis for the award of consequential damages.

(Optional na ito kung gusto mo pa kopyahin.) Section 6 of Rule 67 of the Rules of

Court provides:
x x x The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not
taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be
derived by the owner from the public use or public purpose of the property taken,
the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the
business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the
consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the
owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.

Esperida, Hipolito and de Belen vs Jurado, Jr.

G.R. no. 172538 April 25, 2012

Nature of an indirect contempt proceeding.

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, specifically outlines the

procedural requisites before the accused may be punished for indirect contempt.
First, there must be an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be cited for contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity to
comment on the charge against him. Third, there must be a hearing and the court
must investigate the charge and consider respondent's answer. Finally, only if
found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.
Indirect contempt proceedings partake of the nature of a criminal prosecution;
hence, strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions also apply to a prosecution
for criminal contempt; the accused is to be afforded many of the protections
provided in regular criminal cases; and proceedings under statutes governing them
are to be strictly construed.