This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, we have previously held in Pepsi Cola Products Phil., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[9] that a motion for continuance of postponement is not a matter of right. Rather, the motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, whose action thereon will not be disturbed by appellate courts in the absence of clear and manifest abuse of discretion, resulting in a denial of substantial justice. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| demonstrates beyond doubt arrogance, haughtiness and disrespect. While petitioner apparently disagrees with the 19 March 2002 Order of the trial court, he did not file a motion for its reconsideration. Neither did he file a motion to reset the scheduled hearing on 22 March 2002. We have ruled that a motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right but is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[15] Petitioner sought to deprive the trial court of the discretion; he took it upon himself to cancel or to order the court to cancel the 22 March 2002 scheduled hearing. | |||||