Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DANILO DUMO v. ERLINDA ESPINAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
Conformably with the foregoing, the CA is vested with sufficient authority and discretion to review matters, not assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that consideration thereof is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.[45] In fact, the CA is possessed with inherent authority to review unassigned errors that are closely related to an error properly raised, or upon which the determination of the error properly assigned is dependent, or where it finds that consideration thereof is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.[46]
	AC. No. 7474 2014-09-09	PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID v. ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA BERSAMIN, J.
Worth stressing, too, is that the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was participating as a counsel.[36] The latter's bare allegations of Judge Madrid's partiality or hostility did not suffice,[37] because the presumption that Judge Madrid would undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and the evidence and without fear or favor should only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[38] As such, Atty. Dealca clearly contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, supra.
	GR No. 163178 2009-01-30	HILARIO P. SORIANO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, in his Indorsement, Garcia explained that, in view of petitioner's filing of an administrative case against him before the Ombudsman, he was referring the case to the DOJ to avoid suspicion of partiality and bias. The Court finds the reason given by Garcia for referring the case not completely acceptable: the mere filing of an administrative case is not a ground for disqualification or inhibition; a contrary rule would encourage parties to file administrative cases against judges or prosecutors in the hope that the latter would recuse himself and refer their cases to friendlier fora.[30] Thus, the reason cited by Garcia in referring the case was erroneous. However, in the absence of evidence that Garcia was motivated by malice or ill will, his erroneous referral of the case does not put him in violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Hence, respondent's dismissal of the complaint against Garcia did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
	GR NO. 170916 2007-04-27	CGR CORPORATION HEREIN v. ERNESTO L. TREYES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The 2006 case of Dumo v. Espinas[14] reiterates the long-established rule that the only form of damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property:Lastly, we agree with the CA and the RTC that there is no basis for the MTC to award actual, moral, and exemplary damages in view of the settled rule that in ejectment cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Considering that the only issue raised in ejectment is that of rightful possession, damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. x x x[15] (Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied; citations omitted)
	GR NO. 170080 2007-04-03	CONSOLACION Q. AUSTRIA v. CONSUELO Q. JALANDONI TINGA, J.
It is true that petitioner did not assign this error on appeal resulting in the appellate court's failure to rule on the matter. Nonetheless, we cannot simply brush this issue aside considering that its resolution is necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case.[17] The rectification of the trial court's decision is accordingly in order.