This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-08-26 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The client was likewise spared from counsel's negligence in Government Service Insurance System v. Bengson Commercial Buildings, Inc.[51] and Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon.[52] Said the Court in Bengson:But if under the circumstances of the case, the rule deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it.[53] II. Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not homosexuality per se. | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping[17] is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari.[18] It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[19] The established rule is that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.[20] Forum shopping unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with and mocks our judicial processes, thereby adversely affecting the efficient administration of justice.[21] Forum shopping is contumacious, as well as an act of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusive of their processes.[22] A violation of the rule against forum shopping warrants prosecution for contempt of court and constitutes a ground for summary dismissal of the actions involved, without prejudice to appropriate administrative action against the counsel.[23] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Assuming for the nonce that [respondent judge] erred in issuing the Order of 16 December 1998 without awaiting the resolution of [petitioner's motion for reconsideration], and in holding that [its] properties are not exempt from execution, these would not be errors that are gross and patent, or done maliciously, deliberately or in evident bad faith. [Petitioner] has not presented proof to the contrary, which with the factual milieu would call for administrative sanctions against [respondent judge]. As a matter of public policy, the acts of the judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of [the] law can find refuge.[20] He added that the filing of the administrative charges against respondents was premature because this Court at that time had yet to decide G.R. No. 137448 and G.R. No. 141454. He thus recommended the dismissal of the administrative charges against respondents. | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also filed this administrative complaint[14] against respondents for ignorance of the law, bias and partiality, and for violation of RA 8291. In its complaint, petitioner alleged:In fine, [respondent judge] refused to take cognizance of [Section 39, RA 8291]. He refused to await an authoritative and definitive resolution of the issues [on the exemption of GSIS's funds and properties] from execution or the issue of whether GSIS is entitled to a relief from judgment of his [P]31 million peso cost[s] of suit. ...[H]e was in a hurry, as Bengson, to execute the P31 million costs of suit...[O]n the other hand, Sheriff Mario Anacleto M. Ba�ez, seemed to have the same objective when he refused to take heed of [GSIS�s request] to hold in abeyance the execution sale on the basis of Section 39 (RA 8291). | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court's pronouncement in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[26] is worth echoing: "cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served."[27] Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities.[28] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition.[35] Such act is present when there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought in two or more pending cases.[36] It is usually resorted to by a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek and possibly to get a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[37] | |||||