This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is "grave abuse of discretion" where "a power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and so gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law."[22] | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| On this point, petitioners' counsel is reminded of the role that lawyers play in the dispensation of justice. Bayas v. Sandiganbayan[32] held thus:"Lawyers are not merely representatives of the parties but, first and foremost, officers of the court. As such, one of their duties -- assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice -- is more significant than that of [the cause of] their client, rightly or wrongly. x x x. We stress that candor in all dealings is the very essence of membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are obliged to observe rules of procedure in good faith, not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice."[33] We stress that the payment of docket fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure, but an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal.[34] Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and the decision or final order sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.[35] As laid down in Barangay 24 of Legazpi City v. Imperial:[36] | |||||