Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTOR R. MIRANDA v. JESSIE B. CASTILLO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 183366 2009-08-19	RICARDO C. DUCO v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
Loyola has been reiterated in Miranda v. Castillo,[16] Soller v. Commission on Elections,[17] and Villota v. Commission on Elections,[18] with the Court repeating the warning that any error or deficit in the payment of filing fees in election cases was no longer excusable.
	GR NOS. 186007 & 186016 2009-07-27	SALVADOR DIVINAGRACIA v. COMELEC CARPIO MORALES, J.
Shortly thereafter, in the similar case of Miranda v. Castillo[13] which involved two election protests filed on May 24, 1995, the Court did not yet heed the Loyola warning and instead held that an incomplete payment of filing fee is correctible by the payment of the deficiency. The Court, nonetheless, reiterated the caveat in Loyola that it would no longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees for election cases filed after the promulgation of the Loyola decision on March 25, 1997.
	GR No. 158610 2004-11-12	ESTEBAN M. ZAMORAS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The Court stressed in Loyola v. COMELEC,[14] promulgated on 25 March 1997, that there is no longer any excuse for shortcomings in the payment of filing fees. The Court ruled that the case bars "any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases which may be filed after the promulgation of this decision." The Court reiterated the Loyola doctrine in Miranda v. Castillo,[15] Soller v. Commission on Elections,[16] and Villota v. Commission on Elections.[17] In these cases, the Court warned that error in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable. The Court declared that "it would no longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees for election cases filed after the promulgation of the Loyola decision on March 25, 1997."