This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Recently, there was Deutsche Bank AG v. CA,[19] which involved the consolidation of different petitions for certiorari before the CA assailing an order in the rehabilitation court. While the case was on going, the private respondent therein moved to withdraw its earlier motion to consolidate the petitions. The Court ruled that the issue of whether the CA could validly order the consolidation of cases, although rendered moot, was capable of repetition. Thus, the Court proceeded to resolve the issues therein. | |||||
|
2013-08-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[17] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We also agree with petitioner that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness. Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[18] Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution or grossly disregards the law or existing jurisprudence.[19] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A case is considered moot and academic when it "ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness."[28] However, the moot and academic principle is not an iron-clad rule and is subject to four settled exceptions,[29] two of which are present in this case, namely: when the constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, and when the case is capable of repetition, yet evading review. | |||||