This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court requires that the petition must be accompanied with affidavits of merits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon by petitioner and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense as the case maybe. While a petition for relief without a separate affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts constituting petitioner's substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be, are alleged in a verified petition since the oath elevates the petition to the same category as a separate affidavit,[12] the petition for relief filed by petitioner was not even verified. Thus, the CA did not err in no longer considering the merits of the case. | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is true that under our rule on intervention, the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is left to the sound discretion of the court[37] after a consideration of the appropriate circumstances.[38] However, such discretion is not without limitations.[39] One of the limits in the exercise of such discretion is that it must not be exercised in disregard of law and the Constitution. The CA should have considered the nature of the Ombudsman's powers as provided in the Constitution and RA 6770. | |||||