This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner sought reconsideration but respondent denied its motion in the Order dated 6 October 2004. This time, respondent reasoned that petitioner's reliance on Article 62(6) of RA 6938 is misplaced because the fees collected under Rule 141 are not "fees payable to the Philippine Government" as they do not accrue to the National Treasury but to a special fund[8] under the Court's control.[9] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| If the collections from any increase in current fees and any new fees imposed after the effectivity of this Act exceed the amount needed to fund the special allowances granted to justices, judges and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional Trial Court as authorized under existing laws, the surplus may be used by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to grant additional allowances exclusively to other court personnel not covered by the benefits granted under this Act. (Emphasis supplied) However, these other court personnel not directly covered by R.A. No. 9227, already have their salaries augmented by the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), which purposefully grants a higher allowance to those with lower basic salaries.[8] | |||||
|
2002-08-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the issue on the validity of the Order dated September 11, 1998 granting the issuance of a TRO the same should have been raised in the proper judicial forum and not through an administrative complaint as done by herein complainant. As we have ruled in Tolentino vs. Camano, Jr., not all errors of a judge can be the subject of disciplinary action, but only those tainted by fraud, dishonesty, corruption or malice[7] , of which none has been alleged and proven in the present administrative case. As to the charge of complainant relative to the preliminary investigation mandated in Criminal Cases Nos. 1949, 1951, 1956 and 1957 - there is no evidence to refute the information given by respondent in his Comment that said cases were all remanded to the Office of the | |||||