This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-08-19 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Our Constitution provides for adherence to the general principles of international law as part of the law of the land.[15] The time-honored international principle of pacta sunt servanda demands the performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of the states that enter into the agreement. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties, and obligations under the treaty must be performed by them in good faith.[16] More importantly, treaties have the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction.[17] | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| We take special cognizance that when the CA issued the questioned Decision in 1994, private respondent Raquiza was almost 90 years old. Private respondent had once appealed the case which resulted in a Decision in his favor after ten years of pendency in the appellate court. Considering the private respondent's age and the slow disposition of his previous appeal, it is easy to understand why he had resorted to certiorari instead of appeal in trying to execute the Decision in his favor. Dismissing the instant petition on the basis of technicality alone would be unjust to private respondent. We reiterate that: Technicalities should be disregarded if only to render to the respective parties that which is their due. Thus, although We have said that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lapsed appeal, We have, time and again, likewise held that where a rigid application of that rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, the rule may be relaxed. Hence, considering the broader and primordial interests of justice, particularly when there is grave abuse of discretion, thus impelling occasional departure from the general rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, respondent appellate court may legally entertain the special civil action for certiorari.[49] Petitioner FMC mistakenly pointed out that private respondent filed the petition for certiorari before the CA in 1989, concluding that more than one year had elapsed from the assailed orders of the trial court dated January 19 and May 13, 1988. As previously mentioned, private respondent initially filed a petition for certiorari on July 25, 1988 which was within the extended period of time granted to him by this Court. [50] On August 15, 1988, the Court remanded the case to the CA.[51] While the case was pending in the CA, Raquiza asked for an extension of time to file his Amended Petition. The appellate court granted his motion and on March 30, 1989, Raquiza filed the Amended Petition for Certiorari.[52] Thus, private respondent's Petition for Certiorari was filed within the time set by the rules and with the approval of the Supreme Court and CA. Private respondent, therefore, cannot be said to have slept on his right to appeal for more than a year. | |||||