This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The imposition of treble costs of suit on the petitioners is meant to remind them and their attorney that the extent that an attorney's exercise of his professional responsibility for their benefit as his clients submits to reasonable limits beyond which he ought to go no further, and that his failure to recognize such limits will not be allowed to go unsanctioned by the Court. Thus, the Court has not hesitated to impose treble costs of suit (a) to stress its dislike for "any scheme to prolong litigation" or for "an unwarranted effort to avoid the implementation of a judgment painstakingly arrived at;"[18] (b) to sanction an appeal that was obviously interposed "for the sole purpose of delay;"[19] (c) to disapprove of the party's "lack of good and honest intentions, as well as the evasive manner by which it was able to frustrate (the adverse party's) claim for a decade;"[20] (d) to stifle a party's deplorable propensity to "go to extreme lengths to evade complying with their duties under the law and the orders of this Court" and thereby to cause the case to drag "for far too long with practically no end in sight;"[21] (e) to condemn the counsel's frantic search for "any ground to resuscitate his client's lost cause;"[22] and (f) to reiterate that a litigant, although his right to initiate an action in court is fully respected, is not permitted to initiate similar suits once his case has been adjudicated by a competent court in a valid final judgment, in the hope of securing a favorable ruling "for this will result to endless litigations detrimental to the administration of justice."[23] | |||||
|
2009-12-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The term "claim," as contemplated in Section 6 (c), refers to debts or demands of a pecuniary nature.[23] It is the assertion of rights for the payment of money.[24] Here, petitioners have pecuniary claims the payment of separation pay and moral and exemplary damages. | |||||