BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


REPUBLIC VS MANALO

6/16/2020

0 Comments

 
ISSUE:  Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the Manila  RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the  joint order? 

FACTS: 
Republic of the Philippines, represented in this case by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), filed a complaint for civil forfeiture. In the said civil forfeiture cases,  the Republic sought the forfeiture in its favor of certain deposits and government securities maintained in several bank accounts by the defendants therein, which were  related to the unlawful activity of fraudulently accepting investments from the public, in violation of the Securities Regulation Code as well as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. In a Decision dated May 21, 2009, the CA granted respondents' petition,  ruling that the Manila RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying respondents'  separate motions for intervention. Feeling aggrieved, the Republic moved for  reconsideration which was, however, denied by the CA. 

DECISION: 
No. The petition must be dismissed for having  become moot and academic. A case or issue is  considered moot and academic when it ceases to  present a justiciable controversy by virtue of  supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be  of no practical value or use. 

RATIO DECIDENDI: 
In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be  entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.In this case , the Manila RTC's rendition of the Decision dated September 23, 2010 as  well as the Decision dated February 11, 2011 and the Amended Decision dated  May 9, 2011 by virtue of which the assets subject of the said cases were all forfeited  in favor of the government, are supervening events which have effectively rendered  the essential issue in this case moot and academic, that is, whether or not respondents  should have been allowed by the Manila RTC to intervene on the ground that they  have a legal interest in the forfeited assets.  
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES