This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The rightful authority of a judge, in the full exercise of his public judicial functions, cannot be questioned by any merely private suitor, or by any other, except in the form especially provided by law.[41] To uphold such action would encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, thereby causing incalculable mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machine.[42] | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On the merit of the RTC decision, we agree with the CA that Tomawis had no clear legal right to institute his petition for injunction. Indeed, the Tomawis suit before the RTC was a thinly disguised petition for quo warranto, and not having any legal title to the position of Regional Director (his temporary appointment having been terminated), he did not possess proper personality to file the action.[46] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioners also invoke Section 11, Article III of the Constitution, which states that "[F]ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty." Since the provision is among the guarantees ensured by the Bill of Rights, it certainly gives rise to a demandable right. However, now is not the occasion to elaborate on the parameters of this constitutional right. Given our preceding discussion, it is not necessary to utilize this provision in order to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. It is axiomatic that the constitutionality of an act will not be resolved by the courts if the controversy can be settled on other grounds[73] or unless the resolution thereof is indispensable for the determination of the case.[74] | |||||