This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-07 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that when the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the CA, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions.[31] While there exists exceptions to this rule such as when the CA's and RTC's findings are in conflict with each other[32] the Court observes that none applies with respect to the ruling that the subject transaction was one of sale and not an equitable mortgage. Records readily reveal that both the RTC and the CA observed that there is no clear and convincing evidence to show that the parties agreed upon a mortgage. Hence, absent any glaring error therein or any other compelling reason to hold otherwise, this finding should now be deemed as conclusive and perforce must stand. As echoed in the case of Ampo v. CA:[33] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| While the fault clearly lies with Duran, et al. themselves, they found it convenient to point fingers. To be sure, they were remiss in their duty of coordinating with their counsel on the progress of their pending case. The constant communication link needed to be established between diligent clients and their attorney did not obtain in this case. It is not surprising, therefore, that Duran and his group only filed their instant petition 14 years after the death of their counsel, Atty. Lara. Parties cannot blame their counsel for negligence when they themselves were guilty of neglect.[55] Relief cannot be granted to parties who seek to be relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy was due to their own negligence.[56] Equity serves the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.[57] Duran, et al., as are expected of prudent men concerned with their ordinary affairs, should have had periodically touched base at least to be apprised with the status of their case. Judiciousness in this regard would have alerted them about their counsel's death, thus enabling them to take the necessary steps to protect their claimed right and interest in the case. | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| It is entirely the Union's fault that its position paper was not considered by the NLRC. Records readily reveal that the NLRC was even too generous in affording due process to the Union. It issued no less than three (3) orders for the parties to submit its position papers, which the Union ignored until the last minute. No sufficient justification was offered why the Union belatedly filed its position paper. In Datu Eduardo Ampo v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, it was explained that a party cannot complain of deprivation of due process if he was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so. If he does not avail himself of the chance to be heard, then it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[29] Thus, there was no violation of the Union's right to due process on the part of the NLRC. | |||||