“I, ____________________ do solemnly swear that ... I will delay no man for money or malice ...” So help me God.” (Attorney’s Oath, Form 28, Rules of Court).
“Moreover, the omissions of respondent violated Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Judges are mandated to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. In other words, judges should never cause judicial delay.
Delay derails the administration of justice. It postpones the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the unjustly prosecuted. It crowds the dockets of the courts, increasing the costs for all litigants, pressuring judges to take short cuts, interfering with the prompt and deliberate disposition of those causes in which all parties are diligent and prepared for trial, and overhanging the entire process with the pall of disorganization and insolubility. More than this, possibilities for error in fact-finding multiply rapidly as time elapses between the original fact and its judicial determination. If the facts are not fully and accurately determined, then the wisest judge cannot distinguish between merit and demerit. If courts do not get the facts right, there is little chance for their judgment to be right.” (Orocio v. Roxas, 562 SCRA 347, 357 - 2008)
“ “Prolonged and unjustified delay is the major weakness of our judicial system today.” Though there is a consensus that delay is a pervasive and long-standing problem facing America’s trial courts, there is great disagreement over what is actually meant by “delay”. For research purposes, it often means the age of cases or docket backlog; to the practicing lawyer, delay is the time from announcement that the case is ready for trial until the court can reach the matter; for litigants, the public, and reformers, delay is more broadly defined to include the time from the filing to disposition. Largely depending upon the definition used by the commentator, “delay” is either a cause or a result of the massive congestion in our courts. However categorized, delay has far-reaching and long-lasting effects not only on the litigants but on the administration of justice itself. Delay brings the system of justice into disrepute and breeds disrespect for law. “Justice delayed is justice denied” may sound trite, but the plaintiff and the defendant who must wait from two to five years for the disposition of their lawsuit not only suffer frustration but either or both may suffer injustice in the outcome as well. A party’s rights may change substantially as a result of the death, the disappearance, or the dimming memory, of a witness. The sustained anxiety of the litigants and their resultant dissatisfaction with the legal system are sufficient reasons to require prompt and effective measures for the more expeditious handling of civil disputes. Chief Justice Burger has observed:
There is nothing incompatible between efficiency and justice. Inefficient courts cause delay and expense, and diminish the value of the judgment Small litigants, who cannot manipulate the system, are often exploited - to use the words of Moofield Story, a former president of the American Bar Association - by the litigant ‘with the longest purse.’ . . . Efficiency - like the trial itself - is not an end in itself. It has as its objective the very purpose of the whole system - to do justice. Inefficiency drains the value of even a just result either by delay or excessive cost, or both.” (Civil Trial Manual 2, 1980). By Atty. Cesar T. Tirol
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Summary Judgment in Annulment of Marriages Case A Taboo
It is on the principle that marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution and as the foundation of the family, the State is duty bound to protect and preserve it. In obedience to this legal truism that “judgment on the pleadings” or “summary judgment”, or even “confession of judgment,” for that matter has no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage as well as in annulment of marriage. The rationale is not difficult to see because the grounds for the dissolution of marriages must be proved by preponderance of evidence by the party invoking the same through the trial personally conducted by the Judge.
This is precisely the reason behind that both the Civil Code of the Philippines and the Family Code of the Philippines prescribe that the Court should order the prosecuting attorney to appear and intervene for and in behalf of the State. It is to be noted that the mere submission by the public prosecutor of his report that no collusion exists between the parties would not mean the termination of the State’s participation in the proceedings. The public prosecutor, whose role among other things is the preservation of marriage, should actively participate in the trial of the case and to subject the petitioner’s witnesses to extensive and exhaustive cross examination purposely to see to it that there is no suppression as well as fabrication of evidence.
If there is still any doubt as to the propriety in the application of “summary judgment” or “judgment on the pleadings” or “confession of judgment” it has been laid to rest by the promulgation of the “Rule on Declaration of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages” As it is written, the Rule is explicit in its mandate that the Judge should personally conduct the trial of the case and there should be no delegation of the reception of evidence before a commissioner save as to matter involving property relations of the parties. Putting a stamp of clarity like an unexpected thundercloud looming in the horizon, the Rule also provides that no “judgment on the pleadings” “summary judgment” or “confession of judgment shall be allowed, which means that the grounds for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage or annulment of marriage must be duly proved and established.
In the strict observance of the State’s policy to maintain the Filipino family as a foundation of the nations, the law requires in no uncertain terms the active participation of the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General in the trial of the case and not like a puppet whose string is being pulled to nod agreement to everything the petitioner says. In this way it could ensure that the interest of the State is fully represented and protected in the proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage by way of preventing the presentation of fabricated or suppressed evidence. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
This is precisely the reason behind that both the Civil Code of the Philippines and the Family Code of the Philippines prescribe that the Court should order the prosecuting attorney to appear and intervene for and in behalf of the State. It is to be noted that the mere submission by the public prosecutor of his report that no collusion exists between the parties would not mean the termination of the State’s participation in the proceedings. The public prosecutor, whose role among other things is the preservation of marriage, should actively participate in the trial of the case and to subject the petitioner’s witnesses to extensive and exhaustive cross examination purposely to see to it that there is no suppression as well as fabrication of evidence.
If there is still any doubt as to the propriety in the application of “summary judgment” or “judgment on the pleadings” or “confession of judgment” it has been laid to rest by the promulgation of the “Rule on Declaration of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages” As it is written, the Rule is explicit in its mandate that the Judge should personally conduct the trial of the case and there should be no delegation of the reception of evidence before a commissioner save as to matter involving property relations of the parties. Putting a stamp of clarity like an unexpected thundercloud looming in the horizon, the Rule also provides that no “judgment on the pleadings” “summary judgment” or “confession of judgment shall be allowed, which means that the grounds for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage or annulment of marriage must be duly proved and established.
In the strict observance of the State’s policy to maintain the Filipino family as a foundation of the nations, the law requires in no uncertain terms the active participation of the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General in the trial of the case and not like a puppet whose string is being pulled to nod agreement to everything the petitioner says. In this way it could ensure that the interest of the State is fully represented and protected in the proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage by way of preventing the presentation of fabricated or suppressed evidence. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Party- In- Interest in Annulment of Marriages
There are some nagging questions that have been confronting practitioners before the Family Courts especially on the cases of annulment of marriage. Foremost of which is the issue on the real-party-interest who can initiate an action to sever the marital bonds. It has been the rule and practice that the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage as the same is being reserved solely and exclusively to the husband or wife. The importance of the real party in interest cannot be overemphasized, like that Dutch boy with his thumb plugging the hole in the dike trying to hold the tides.
This is clear under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages by making it exclusively the right of the spouses to initiate the action. Simply put, such petition cannot be filed by the compulsory heirs or intestate heirs of the spouses for the simple reason that they have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor. If ever, they can inquire into the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a separate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the proper courts. More so, neither the State can institute an action to nullify marriages for the logical ground that the primary and primordial concern of the government is to preserve marriages and not to seek their dissolution.
A methodical examination, however, of the present Rule would show that it extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. Further, the new Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before the date of its operation on March 15, 2003 although the marriage subject matter of the case is within the coverage of the Family Code. In other words, in the event that the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code, then the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration and in that case a direct action to declare the marriage as void may be filed and not necessarily in a settlement of the estate proceedings. But the catch is the same can only be filed by the real party in interest purposely to protect their successional rights.
This brings us to the question as to who is the real party-in-interest who can bring an action to declare the marriage as null and void in the event that the marriage was solemnized under the auspices of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Party-in- interest as understood in our civil law means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. In a petition to declare the nullity of marriage, it must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of action. For instance, under the law on succession, the children, as compulsory heirs, and by operation of law have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
In the presence of the compulsory heirs, it is readily apparent that brothers and sisters as well as other collateral relatives of the deceased spouse are not the real party-in-interest to bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the latter. This is so because the presence of the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased spouse who are considered as compulsory heirs precludes succession by collateral relatives and their right is as ephemeral as the moonlight that illuminates the night. The impression is only in the possibility that there are no compulsory heirs that collateral relatives, as real party-in-interest, may bring an action to declare marriage as void since they shall be called upon to succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
This is clear under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages by making it exclusively the right of the spouses to initiate the action. Simply put, such petition cannot be filed by the compulsory heirs or intestate heirs of the spouses for the simple reason that they have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor. If ever, they can inquire into the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a separate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the proper courts. More so, neither the State can institute an action to nullify marriages for the logical ground that the primary and primordial concern of the government is to preserve marriages and not to seek their dissolution.
A methodical examination, however, of the present Rule would show that it extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. Further, the new Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before the date of its operation on March 15, 2003 although the marriage subject matter of the case is within the coverage of the Family Code. In other words, in the event that the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code, then the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration and in that case a direct action to declare the marriage as void may be filed and not necessarily in a settlement of the estate proceedings. But the catch is the same can only be filed by the real party in interest purposely to protect their successional rights.
This brings us to the question as to who is the real party-in-interest who can bring an action to declare the marriage as null and void in the event that the marriage was solemnized under the auspices of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Party-in- interest as understood in our civil law means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. In a petition to declare the nullity of marriage, it must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of action. For instance, under the law on succession, the children, as compulsory heirs, and by operation of law have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
In the presence of the compulsory heirs, it is readily apparent that brothers and sisters as well as other collateral relatives of the deceased spouse are not the real party-in-interest to bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the latter. This is so because the presence of the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased spouse who are considered as compulsory heirs precludes succession by collateral relatives and their right is as ephemeral as the moonlight that illuminates the night. The impression is only in the possibility that there are no compulsory heirs that collateral relatives, as real party-in-interest, may bring an action to declare marriage as void since they shall be called upon to succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. By Judge Globert J. Justalero
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
