Kare v. Platon G.R. No. 35902. October 28, 1931

 

Kare v. Platon G.R. No. 35902. October 28, 1931

Facts: The petitioner filed a motion of protest in the Court of First Instance of Albay contesting the election of one of the respondents, Francisco Perfecto. The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay entered an order on which required the petitioner to give two kinds of bond in order that proper proceedings might be taken on his motion of protest. These two kinds of bond were personal bond for P3,000 and a cash bond of P2,000 to be deposited with the provincial treasurer of Albay within the time specified in the order. These sums were later changed so that the cash bond was for P1,500 and the personal bond for P3,500.

 

Issue:  Whether or not the court has the right to choose in which form the petitioner would give his payment, through bond or through cash deposit

 

Held: Court will require a personal bond. Cash deposit on discretion of the petitioner

 

Ratio: Section 482 of the Election Law states that “Before the court shall entertain any such contest or counter-contest or admit an appeal, the party filing the contest, counter-contest, or appeal shall give bond in an amount fixed by the court with two sureties satisfactory to it, conditioned that he will pay all expenses and costs incident to such motion or appeal, or shall deposit cash in court in lieu of such bond.” The Supreme Court held that while the respondent judge holds that the court may require either a bond or a cash deposit, the petitioner maintains that it is to him alone the choice is given to file a personal bond or to make a cash deposit in lieu thereof. The Supreme Court ruled that the court may only require a personal bond, and that the contestant may make a cash deposit in lieu thereof.

 

StatCon maxim: The rule accepted by most of the authorities is that if the chapter or section heading has been inserted merely for convenience or reference, and not as integral part of the statute, it should not be allowed to control interpretation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more