Macabingkil v Yatco
21 SCRA 150
FACTS:
The principal legal question posed by this original petition for a writ of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
is one of procedural due process. It arose from the applicability of an order for demolition of April 18, 1964 to the house of petitioner. Petitioner contends that she has not been a party to such a case and was denied a change to intervene therein.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner was denied due process
RULING:
Yes. The separate and collective effect of the writ of execution and order of demolition and the respondent Provincial
Sheriff’s threat to enforce the same is to work unwarranted hardship to petitioner. The following conditions must be present:
FACTS:
The principal legal question posed by this original petition for a writ of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
is one of procedural due process. It arose from the applicability of an order for demolition of April 18, 1964 to the house of petitioner. Petitioner contends that she has not been a party to such a case and was denied a change to intervene therein.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner was denied due process
RULING:
Yes. The separate and collective effect of the writ of execution and order of demolition and the respondent Provincial
Sheriff’s threat to enforce the same is to work unwarranted hardship to petitioner. The following conditions must be present:
-
There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
-
Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired;
-
Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard;
-
Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment