This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Section 1 of Rule 137, supra, contemplates two kinds of self-disqualification. The first paragraph enumerates the instances when the judge is prohibited and disqualified from sitting on and deciding a case.[18] The prohibition is compulsory simply because the judge is conclusively presumed to be incapable of impartiality.[19] The second paragraph speaks of voluntary inhibition; whether or not the judge can sit in and try the case is left to his discretion, depending on the existence of just and valid reasons not included in the first paragraph, but in exercising the discretion, he must rely only on his conscience.[20] | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, considering the grounds raised by petitioner, it appears that he denominated this petition as one under Rule 45, but he filed it as both a petition for review under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.The applicable rule is Rule 45, which clearly provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this Court through a petition for review. This remedy is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Recourse under Rule 65 cannot be allowed either as an add-on or as a substitute for appeal.[23] | |||||
|
2010-09-20 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Rules contemplate two kinds of inhibition: compulsory and voluntary. Under the first paragraph of the cited Rule, it is conclusively presumed that judges cannot actively and impartially sit in the instances mentioned. The second paragraph, which embodies voluntary inhibition, leaves to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide.[10] | |||||
|
2010-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Court applied the same precept in Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc. [27] where the judge's right to inhibit was weighed against his duty to decide the case without fear of repression . Indeed, t he automatic granting of a motion for voluntary inhibition would open the floodgates to a form of forum-shopping, in which litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic to their cause, and would prove antithetical to the speedy and fair administration of justice.[28] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with petitioner. Decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved may be appealed to this Court through a petition for review. This remedy is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case,[19] and considering there is no congruence in the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals regarding the status of employment of petitioner, an exception to the general rule that this Court is bound by the findings of facts of the appellate court,[20] we can review such findings. | |||||
|
2006-08-28 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Basic is the principle that when Rule 45 is available, recourse under Rule 65 cannot be allowed either as an add-on or as a substitute for appeal.[18] The special civil action for certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, when the latter remedy is available.[19] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 45, the reglementary period to appeal is 15 days from notice of judgment or denial of the motion for reconsideration. Rule 45 is clear that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[15] A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will not cure the failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[16] The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.[17] A petition under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[18] And under Section 5(f) of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, an error in the choice or mode of appeal, as in this case, merits an outright dismissal. | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, the mere filing of an administrative case against a judge is not a ground for disqualifying him from hearing the case, for if on every occasion the party apparently aggrieved would be allowed to either stop the proceedings in order to await the final decision on the desired disqualification, or demand the immediate inhibition of the judge on the basis alone of his being so charged, many cases would have to be kept pending or perhaps there would not be enough judges to handle all the cases pending in all the courts.[23] This Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial.[24] Moreover, while judges are given wide latitude of discretion in determining if it is indeed proper for them to hear or sit in a particular case, it should be emphasized that this choice is not absolute and must be based on a just and valid cause and on a rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him.[25] The option given to a judge to choose whether or not to handle a particular case should be counter-balanced by the judge's sworn duty to administer justice without fear of repression. | |||||