This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This reminder applies even more to lower court judges like herein respondent because they are judicial front-liners who have direct contact with litigants.[22] A review of past decisions[23] shows a wide range of penalty for cases of similar nature. These include reprimand, fine, suspension, and even dismissal. In assessing the proper penalty against respondent Judge, her deliberate omission to heed the Court's directive to answer or to comment on the complaints against her may likewise be factored in. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing requirements -- that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion -- are mandatory, and if not religiously complied with, the motion becomes pro forma. A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon. (Emphasis supplied.) The rationale behind the rule is plain: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court will be unable to determine whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the motion; and if he objects, to hear him on his objection.[38] Harsh as they may seem, these rules were introduced to avoid a capricious change of mind in order to provide due process to both parties and to ensure impartiality in the trial.[39] | |||||
|
2004-03-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is elementary in procedural law that any motion that fails to comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a mere scrap of paper[73] which the court has no right to consider, nor the clerk of court any right to receive.[74] It is also elementary that any Motion for Demolition cannot be granted ex parte, as notice and hearing are necessary for the issuance of the Writ of Demolition. | |||||