swing, swing
i have no idea what the hell the title is for. however, it may reflect my current courses of action... possible "sideline dito... sideline duon."
i went to my old intership office in P.A.O. QC and surprise, surprise, Glenda gave me a 'raket'. As Glenda's most excellent pleader, I voluntarily accepted in order for me to put into practice my trade and at the same time keep myself busy and earn some extra moolah.
It's a petition for rectification of entries in a birth certificate. It's not it the rules of court in either 103 or 108, however no rule also says that it is prohibited.
The story goes like this... the former lawyer filed a 'nescafe three in one' petition (cancellation of entries/declaration of abandonment/adoption) which is surely NOT ALLOWED, although not expressly prohibited (or so as Judge Sempio Diy says)
Therefore, as I studied the situation, I had several remedies in mind, to wit: first, the easiest would be to Dismiss under Rule 17, since it is the first dismissal of a special proceeding, I theorized that the res judicata rule would not apply in the event that a second dismissal is in order.
Second, move for the suspension of the other actions pending the determination of the others. In this theory, priority will be given to the more important proceeding, whilst maintaining the records within the same court, thus expediting the subsequent proceedings by motion to take discretionary judicial notice of the evidence already adduced in the prior proceedings.
Third, move to severe one action, specifically the cancellation of entries in the birth certificate, taking into consideration the rule on joinder of causes of action, particularly the rule that all actions must be covered by the same rule. therefore, if one or two of the causes of action are covered by the rules on ordinary action, whilst the other is governed by the rule on summary procedure, the court is mandated to severe one of them and it should be proceeded with separately. declaration of abandonment and adoption are both summary proceedings, while correction of entries requires evidentiary presentation. Therefore, I theorize that the correction should be severed.
in all instances, i believe that the non forum-shopping requirement is not violated.
however, judge sempio diy had another remedy in mind, that is to RECTIFY the entries. Somehow, this would be a sort of an alien remedy, since the grounds as provided for in either Rule 108 or 103 are different. Procedurally, somehow its antecedent is that of my third remedy. Therefore, the effect would be a new raffle, although there is a chance that the same might be consolidated in the same branch. Substantially, you are most likely to invoke justice and equity in this situation. She said it was done before, although it didn't reach the Supreme Court, nonetheless, it's the law of the case, for as long as nobody would disturb it.
now, i've tried my hand as a pleader to create the right words suited for the petition, a little drama and romance, shall i say, and voila, I hope glenda likes it... i most certainly am not doing this pro bono.
i went to my old intership office in P.A.O. QC and surprise, surprise, Glenda gave me a 'raket'. As Glenda's most excellent pleader, I voluntarily accepted in order for me to put into practice my trade and at the same time keep myself busy and earn some extra moolah.
It's a petition for rectification of entries in a birth certificate. It's not it the rules of court in either 103 or 108, however no rule also says that it is prohibited.
The story goes like this... the former lawyer filed a 'nescafe three in one' petition (cancellation of entries/declaration of abandonment/adoption) which is surely NOT ALLOWED, although not expressly prohibited (or so as Judge Sempio Diy says)
Therefore, as I studied the situation, I had several remedies in mind, to wit: first, the easiest would be to Dismiss under Rule 17, since it is the first dismissal of a special proceeding, I theorized that the res judicata rule would not apply in the event that a second dismissal is in order.
Second, move for the suspension of the other actions pending the determination of the others. In this theory, priority will be given to the more important proceeding, whilst maintaining the records within the same court, thus expediting the subsequent proceedings by motion to take discretionary judicial notice of the evidence already adduced in the prior proceedings.
Third, move to severe one action, specifically the cancellation of entries in the birth certificate, taking into consideration the rule on joinder of causes of action, particularly the rule that all actions must be covered by the same rule. therefore, if one or two of the causes of action are covered by the rules on ordinary action, whilst the other is governed by the rule on summary procedure, the court is mandated to severe one of them and it should be proceeded with separately. declaration of abandonment and adoption are both summary proceedings, while correction of entries requires evidentiary presentation. Therefore, I theorize that the correction should be severed.
in all instances, i believe that the non forum-shopping requirement is not violated.
however, judge sempio diy had another remedy in mind, that is to RECTIFY the entries. Somehow, this would be a sort of an alien remedy, since the grounds as provided for in either Rule 108 or 103 are different. Procedurally, somehow its antecedent is that of my third remedy. Therefore, the effect would be a new raffle, although there is a chance that the same might be consolidated in the same branch. Substantially, you are most likely to invoke justice and equity in this situation. She said it was done before, although it didn't reach the Supreme Court, nonetheless, it's the law of the case, for as long as nobody would disturb it.
now, i've tried my hand as a pleader to create the right words suited for the petition, a little drama and romance, shall i say, and voila, I hope glenda likes it... i most certainly am not doing this pro bono.
posted by ohme at 11:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home