Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Algura vs. The Local Government Unit of The City of Naga
Algura vs. The Local Government Unit of The City of Naga
*
G.R. No. 150135. October 30, 2006.
* THIRD DIVISION.
82
83
sarily from the language used, unless the later act fully embraces
the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier
act is beyond peradventure removed. Hence, every effort must be
used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction
they can be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of
the earlier. (Emphasis supplied). Instead of declaring that Rule 3,
Section 21 has been superseded and impliedly amended by Section
18 and later Section 19 of Rule 141, the Court finds that the two
rules can and should be harmonized. The Court opts to reconcile
Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 19 because it is a settled
principle that when conflicts are seen between two provisions, all
efforts must be made to harmonize them. Hence, „every statute [or
rule] must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes [or
rules] as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.‰
Same; Same; Same; If the trial court finds that the application
meets the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate
as indigent litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a
matter of right, but if the trial court finds that one or both
requirements have not been met, then it would set a hearing to
enable the applicant to prove that he has „no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
himself and his family.‰· The two (2) rules can stand together and
are compatible with each other. When an application to litigate as
an indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits
and supporting documents submitted by the applicant to determine
if the applicant complies with the income and property standards
prescribed in the present Section 19 of Rule 141·that is, the
applicantÊs gross income and that of the applicantÊs immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage
of an employee; and the applicant does not own real property with a
fair market value of more than Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PhP 300,000.00). If the trial court finds that the applicant meets
the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate as
indigent litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a matter
of right. However, if the trial court finds that one or both
requirements have not been met, then it would set a hearing to
enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has „no money or
property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.‰ In that hearing, the adverse
party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence
presented by the applicant; after which the
84
85
·James Baldwin
The Case
_______________
1 Art. III, Sec. 11. FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-
JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL
NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY.
2 Rollo, p. 52.
86
The Facts
_______________
3 Id., at p. 57.
4 Id., at pp. 20-23.
5 Id., at pp. 24-28.
6 Id., at p. 27.
7 Id., at p. 28.
8 Id., at p. 29.
87
_______________
88
89
_______________
90
The Issue
91
_______________
93
94
95
_______________
96
_______________
23 Rollo, p. 40.
97
_______________
98
_______________
99
100
_______________
101
Petition granted.
··o0o··
102