This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v. Judge Medel Belen,[22] the Court held as inexcusable abuse of authority the trial judge's "obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure." Such level of ignorance is not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,"[23] or in essence, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that an appeal must be perfected within the reglementary period provided by law; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory.[20] However, as in all cases, there are exceptions to the strict application of the rules for perfecting an appeal.[21] | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, even if the Court allows the present petition for certiorari, it would still be dismissible for lack of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeals. For certiorari to prosper, the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[14] | |||||