Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUDY CAROL L. DANSAL v. GIL. P. FERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 195540 2013-03-13	GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We agree with the CA that the legislature clearly intended to shorten the period of redemption for juridical persons whose properties were foreclosed and sold in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135.[27]
	GR Nos. 146368-69 2004-10-18	MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, the Graft Investigation Officer released his resolution finding probable cause against petitioner on August 16, 1995, less than six months from the time petitioner and her co-accused submitted their counter-affidavits. On October 30, 1995, only two and a half months later, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto had reviewed the case and had approved the resolution. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the lapse of only ten months from the filing of the complaint on December 13, 1994, to the approval of the resolution on October 30, 1995, is by no means oppressive. "Speedy disposition of cases" is consistent with reasonable delays.[8] The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to lodge freely their complaints against alleged wrongdoing of government personnel.[9] A steady stream of cases reaching the Ombudsman inevitably results.[10] Naturally, disposition of those cases would take some time. Moreover, petitioner herself had contributed to the alleged delay when she asked for extension of time to file her counter-affidavit.
	GR No. 149453 2003-04-01	PEOPLE v. PANFILO M. LACSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Soon thereafter, the SC in early 1999 rendered a decision declaring the Sandiganbayan without jurisdiction over the cases. The records were remanded to the QC RTC: Upon raffle, the case was assigned to Branch 81. Petitioner and the others promptly filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause (Annex B). He asked that warrants for his arrest not be issued. He did not move for the dismissal of the Informations, contrary to respondent OSG's claim.[21] The respondent's admissions made in the course of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on him. The respondent is barred from repudiating his admissions absent evidence of palpable mistake in making such admissions.[22]
	GR No. 139571-72 2001-03-28	ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN GONZAGA-REYES, J.
"xxx. Withal, it must not be lost sight of that the concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are the length of delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay." Briefly stated, the determination of whether or not the constitutional right invoked by petitioner has been violated, the factors to consider and balance are the duration of the delay, reason therefor, assertion of the right or failure to assert it and the prejudice caused by such delay.[42]
	GR No. 140863 2000-08-22	SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT v. ROLANDO HOW GONZAGA-REYES, J.
of whether the delay is unreasonable, thus amounting to a transgression of the right to a speedy trial, cannot be simply reduced to a mathematical process. Hence, the length of delay is not the lone criterion to be considered, several factors must be taken into account in determining whether or not the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. The factors to consider and balance are the duration of the delay, reason thereof, assertion of the right or failure to assert it and the prejudice caused by such delay.[38] The importance of the review authority of the Secretary of Justice cannot be overemphasized; as earlier pointed out, it is based on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies that holds that "mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of an
	GR No. 108431 2000-07-14	OSCAR G. RARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"The Court Is Not Unmindful Of The Duty Of The Ombudsman Under The Constitution And Republic Act No. 6770 To Act Promptly On Complaints Brought Before Him. But Such Duty Should Not Be Mistaken With A Hasty Resolution Of Cases At The Expense Of Thoroughness And Correctness. Judicial Notice Should Be Taken Of The Fact That The Nature Of The Office Of The Ombudsman Encourages Individuals Who Clamor For Efficient Government Service To Freely Lodge Their Complaints Against Wrongdoings Of Government Personnel, Thus Resulting In A Steady Stream Of Cases Reaching The Office Of The Ombudsman."[68] Finally, There Is No Ground To Give Credence To Petitioner'S Claim That The Complainant Should Be Charged As A Briber On Account Of His Admission That He Gave Petitioner Some Sum Of Money; Or That Evidence Presented During The Preliminary Investigation, Specifically The Affidavits Of Witnesses, Were Hearsay And Inadmissible. As We Stated Earlier, This Court Cannot Supplant The Ombudsman'S Discretion In The Determination Of What Crime To Charge An Accused.