This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It must be borne in mind that weighing heavily against the petitioners' defense is the well-settled doctrine that findings of fact of trial courts -- in this case, the Sandiganbayan -- particularly in the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, is binding upon this Court, absent any arbitrariness, abuse or palpable error.[37] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan[25] we allowed a Rule 65 petition, notwithstanding that the proper remedy is a Rule 45 appeal, to review a Sandiganbayan Decision in view of the importance of the issues raised in the case. We similarly allowed a review under Rule 65 in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division)[26] and Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Special First Division)[27] - cases on ill-gotten wealth - on the reasoning that the nature of the cases was endowed with public interest and involved public policy concerns. In the latter Republic v. Sandiganbayan case, we added that substantial justice to the Filipino people and to all parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, should be relentlessly and firmly pursued. In the past, we have likewise allowed a similar treatment on the showing that an appeal was an inadequate remedy.[28] That we can single out for special treatment cases involving grave abuse of discretion is supported by no less than the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution which provides:Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversy involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. | |||||
|
2007-03-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Before we even begin to consider the foregoing issues, the Court takes cognizance of a pivotal question of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, a deficiency patent on the face of the records. We resolve this issue motu proprio, even if it was not raised by the parties nor threshed out in their pleadings,[31] for to let it pass would result in the conferment of jurisdiction to the HLURB by the mere oversight of the parties, the agency concerned and the CA.[32] | |||||
|
2003-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Third. It is incumbent upon the Court to exercise judicial restraint in rendering a ruling in this particular case to preserve the principle of separation of powers and restore faith and stability in our system of government. Dred Scott v. Sandford[7] is a grim illustration of how catastrophic improvident judicial incursions into the legislative domain could be. It is one of the most denounced cases in the history of U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Penned by Chief Justice Taney, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, denied that a Negro was a citizen of the United States even though he happened to live in a "free" state. The U.S. High Court likewise declared unconstitutional the law forbidding slavery in certain federal territories. Dred Scott undermined the integrity of the U.S. High Court at a moment in history when it should have been a powerful stabilizing force. More significantly, it inflamed the passions of the Northern and Southern states over the slavery issue thus precipitating the American Civil War. This we do not wish to happen in the Philippines! | |||||