This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| This same application has already been echoed in our past decisions.[44] In those cases, the Court observes that the real purpose behind the requirement of notice of hearing is to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before a motion is resolved by the court.[45] The test is the presence of the opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based.[46] Considering the circumstances of the present case, we believe that procedural due process has substantially been complied with. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent Judge Montenegro's refusal to recuse himself from the proceedings, we find no grave abuse of discretion. We have held time and again that inhibition must be for just and valid causes. The mere imputation of bias and partiality is not enough ground for judges to inhibit, especially when the charge is without sufficient basis. This Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand concerned judges with the stigma of bias and partiality. Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice "in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear and favor.[52] The Resolution[53] of the Court En Banc dated June 27, 2006 which dismissed the complaint filed by Mayor Jesse Robredo against Judge Montenegro served to negate petitioner's allegations. Nevertheless, when the ground sought for the judge's inhibition is not among those enumerated in Section 1,[54] Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons. | |||||