Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTER JANE VIRGINIA F. ALMORA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 168641 2007-04-27	PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE BAUTISTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner now comes before this Court seeking the reversal of the foregoing CA Decision. The Court gives due course to the petition notwithstanding the fact that petitioner did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the CA before the filing of herein petition. It is not a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[5]
	GR NO. 136975 2005-03-31	COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HANTEX TRADING CO. CALLEJO, SR., J.
We do not agree with the contention of the respondent that a motion for reconsideration ought to have been filed before the filing of the instant petition. A motion for reconsideration of the decision of the CA is not a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45. As we held in Almora v. Court of Appeals:[46]
	AM No. RTJ-04-1885 2004-11-17	STATE PROSECUTOR PABLO FORMARAN III v. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO-DARAY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On June 12, 2003, Atty. Ganal filed a Supplemental Complaint[10] on the ground that respondent judge exhibited manifest partiality and patent injustice against his client Kanemitsu Yamaoka in handling 3 cases filed by his client against the group of Friend and Kawai, namely: (1) Criminal Case No. 16151 for perjury pending before RTC, Branch 35; (2) Criminal Case No. 13280 for estafa pending before RTC, Branch 36; and, (3) Corporate Case No. 1 pending before RTC, Branch 23.