Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIX A. SAJOT v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 158053 2007-06-21	EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While appeal is an essential part of our judicial system, a party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down by the Rules of Court on appeals, mindful of the fact that an appeal is purely a statutory right. Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Both courts and litigants are therefore enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While there are instances when the Court allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, such liberality is not intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.[28]
	GR NO. 168217 2006-06-27	JOY LEE RECUERDO v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
While it is true that nine of the 17 postdated checks petitioner issued and delivered to the private complainant were honored by the drawee banks, such a circumstance is not a justification for her acquittal of the charges relative to the dishonored checks. The reimbursement or restitution to the offended party of the sums swindled by the petitioner does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. It only extinguishes pro tanto the civil liability.[25] Moreover, estafa is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State on its own motion even though complete reparation had been made for the loss or damage suffered by the offended party.[26] The consent of the private complainant to petitioner's payment of her civil liability pendente lite does not entitle the latter to an acquittal. Subsequent payments does not obliterate the criminal liability already incurred.[27] Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise between petitioner and the private complainant on the former's civil liability.[28]
	AM No. MTJ-02-1453 2003-04-29	EDITHA PALMA GIL v. JUDGE FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Rules as above-quoted explicitly mandate that the application for injunction should be verified. While litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly administration of justice.[14]