Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 161330 2007-02-20	RENE CABARLES v. JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA QUISUMBING, J.
Although a discussion on the right to speedy disposition of the case is mooted by our nullification of Judge Maceda's April 1, 2003 Order as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, we are constrained to reiterate that the concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[37] The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[38]
	GR NO. 152780 2007-01-22	LIGAYA M. APOLINARIO v. DESIREE B. FLORES CARPIO, J.
[19] Dela Rosa v. CA, 323 Phil. 596 (1996).
	GR No. 150793 2004-11-19	FRANCIS CHUA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,[23] when a trial court commits a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the person aggrieved can file a special civil action for certiorari. The aggrieved parties in such a case are the State and the private offended party or complainant.[24]