This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court is well-aware of the previous administrative cases against respondent for failure to act with dispatch on cases and incidents pending before her. In Del Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres,[23] respondent was found guilty of gross inefficiency for undue delay in resolving the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 18756, for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Gonzalez v. Torres,[24] respondent was sanctioned for unreasonable delay in resolving the Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case No. 71984 and meted the penalty of a fine in the amount of P20,000.00. In Plata v. Torres,[25] respondent was fined P10,000.00 for undue delay in resolving the Motion to Withdraw Information in Criminal Case No. 6679, and another P10,000.00 for her repeated failure to comply with Court directives to file her comment on the administrative complaint against her. In Winternitz v. Gutierrez-Torres,[26] the Court held respondent guilty of undue delay in acting upon the Motion to Withdraw Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 84382, 84383, and 84384, and suspended her from office without salary and other benefits for one month. In Soluren v. Torres,[27] respondent was once again adjudged guilty of undue delay in acting upon repeated motions to withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. 100833 for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Lugares v. Gutierrez-Torres,[28] promulgated on November 23, 2010, the Court already dismissed respondent from the service for gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, in relation to Civil Case Nos. 19887, 19063, 17765, and 18425; as well as for insubordination because she defied Court orders by failing to file her comment on the charges against her. Finally, in Pancubila v. Torres,[29] the Court imposed another fine of P20,000.00 upon respondent for undue delay in rendering a decision and violation of a directive in connection with Civil Case No. 20700. In all the foregoing administrative cases, respondent was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. | |||||
|
2004-02-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On September 25, 2000, the appellate court denied the motion for lack of merit.[16] However, the denial was by a split vote. The ponente of the appellate court's original decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, joined in the opinion prepared by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis. The dissent observed that as the first marriage was validly declared void ab initio, then there was no first marriage to speak of. Since the date of the nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never married, he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. | |||||
|
2004-02-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[21] The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in accordance with Articles 3[22] and 4[23] of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, "This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with; and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never married."[24] The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become final and executory. | |||||