This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-08-25 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| We may consider the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors as a memorandum decision adopting by reference the report of the investigating commissioner. However, we look with disfavor the change in the recommended penalty without any explanation therefor. Again, we remind the IBP Board of Governors of the importance of the requirement to announce in plain terms its legal reasoning, since the requirement that its decision in disciplinary proceedings must state the facts and the reasons on which its decision is based is akin to what is required of the decisions of courts of record.[27] The reasons for handing down a penalty occupy no lesser station than any other portion of the ratio. | |||||
|
2004-12-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Normally, non-compliance with the procedural rules would result in the remand of the case.[26] However, on many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case, or when public interest demands an early disposition of the case, or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties.[27] In view of the delay in resolving the instant complaint against the respondent, and in the interest of justice and speedy disposition of cases, the Court opts to resolve the same based on the records before it.[28] | |||||