This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-03-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Order of January 6, 2003 took so long was not sufficiently explained. Moreover, the Urgent Motion for Extension was filed only on April 24, 2003[30] or three days after her alleged last day to post the bond on April 21, 2003,[31] in violation of the rule that motions for extension must be filed prior to the expiration of the period sought to be extended.[32] Compounding the erroneous admission of said motion for extension, Judge Bermejo, on the same day, issued an Order allowing the defendant an additional extension of 15 days, more than the 10 days she initially asked for, and in further violation of the rule enunciated in Chua, supra. In the meantime, the transmittal to the appellate court of the case's records was deferred to await the posting of the supersedeas bond. Actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer involve perturbation of social order which must be resolved as promptly as possible and, accordingly, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delay should carefully be avoided. | |||||