This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The circumstances surrounding the qualification of Arnado to run for public office during the May 10, 2010 and May 13, 2013 elections, to reiterate for emphasis, are the same. Arnado's use of his US passport in 2009 invalidated his oath of renunciation resulting in his disqualification to run for mayor of Kauswagan in the 2010 elections. Since then and up to the time he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections, Arnado had not cured the defect in his qualification. Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and applicable to this case following the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established.[48] Under the doctrine, "[w]hen the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where facts are substantially the same."[49] It enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and bars relitigation of the same issue.[50] | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit, and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals[27] in toto. | |||||
|
2001-04-02 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, during the pendency of the proceedings before the CA, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari[7] before this Court, docketed as GR No. 137571, contending that the RTC should have rejected the appeal for allegedly being filed late -- beyond the 48-hour period provided under the pre-1997 Rules of Court. In its September 21, 2000 Decision which became final on October 31, 2000,[8] this Court denied the Petition. | |||||
|
2001-04-02 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This Court already rejected the same arguments in its earlier Decision in GR No. 137571,[13] which debunked petitioner's challenge to the propriety of the appeal. Pertinent portions of that Decision are reproduced below:"Clearly then, the reglementary period for filing an appeal in a habeas corpus case is now similar to that in ordinary civil actions and is governed by Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules, which provides: | |||||