This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides, in effect, that a charge for indirect contempt must be filed with the court contemned. Although this provision is permissive in nature, in the event of concurrent jurisdiction over cases of contempt of court, it would be a good practice to acknowledge the preferential right of the court against which the act of contempt was committed to try and punish the guilty party.[20] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The present question does not pose a novel issue. In an analogous case, San Luis v. Court of Appeals,[8] the Court of Appeals likewise reckoned the counting of the 60-day period from petitioner's receipt of a copy of the assailed Order, considered the interruption of the running of the period by the filing of the motion for reconsideration, and held that the remaining period resumed to run on the date petitioner received the Order denying his motion for reconsideration. | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In view of the above ruling, we deem it necessary to direct Judge Reyes to immediately lift any freeze order still pending and to order the release of any property deposited in custodia legis. It is already an accepted rule of procedure for this Court to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation.[29] To achieve that end and to expedite the case in the interest of substantial justice, a directive to the trial judge to lift the freeze order and release the property deposited with the court becomes indispensable.[30] | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| THE COMPLAINT AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF LIBEL AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, WHICH PUBLIC RESPONDENT CAPRICIOUSLY, WHIMSICALLY, AND ARBITRARILY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE (Underscoring supplied). At the time petitioners' petition for certiorari was filed before the appellate court and even up to the rendition of its assailed Resolution on February 8, 1999, the rule in force was above-quoted Rule 65, Sec. 4.The petition at bar would then fail. The rule, however, was amended during the pendency of the present case before this Court by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (Further Amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) which took effect on September 1, 2000. The 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is now reckoned from date of receipt of thenotice of denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial if one was filed.[14] | |||||