Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODRIGO B. SUPENA v. JUDGE ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. NO. 6377 2007-03-12	RUFA C. SUAN v. ATTY. RICARDO D. GONZALEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The filing of the intra-corporate case before the RTC does not amount to forum-shopping. It is a formal demand of respondent's legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law with respect to the controversy involved.[7] The relief sought in the case is primarily to compel the bank to disclose its stockholdings, to allow them the inspection of corporate books and records, and the payment of damages. It was also prayed that a TRO be issued to enjoin the holding of the annual stockholder's meeting and the election of the members of the Board, which, only courts of justice can issue.
	AM NO. MTJ-06-1632 2006-05-04	LEONARDO C. LANDAYAN v. JUDGE ROMEO A. QUILANTANG CALLEJO, SR., J.
Gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and inefficiency are characteristics impermissible in a judge. Failure to observe the basic laws and rules is not only inexcusable, but also renders a judge susceptible to administrative sanction for gross ignorance of the law.[18] There will be great faith in the administration of justice if the party litigants believe that the occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of apparent deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.[19]
	A M No. CA-01-32 2002-01-23	HEIRS OF LATE JUSTICE JOSE B. L. REYES v. JUSTICES DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA PARDO, J.
In light of the foregoing, we find that Justice Demetria, as ponente, disregarded existing rules of procedure. Considering that what he violated were the same rules of procedure he was expected and required to observe, such failure to comply was inexcusable. When the law transgressed is elementary, the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[26]