Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISAAC DELGADO v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 181455-56 2009-12-04	SANTIAGO CUA v. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
That a court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot cases and spend its time in deciding questions, the resolution of which cannot in any way affect the rights of the person or persons presenting them, is well settled. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[71]
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
That a court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot cases and spend its time in deciding questions the resolution of which can not in any way affect the rights of the person or persons presenting them is well settled. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[68]
	GR No. 132540 2009-04-16	ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Needless to stress, courts exist to decide actual controversies, not to give opinions upon abstract propositions. That a court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot cases and spend time in deciding questions, the resolution of which cannot in any way affect the rights of the person or persons presenting them is well settled.[27]
	GR No. 127965 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO SALAZAR v. REYNALDO DE LEON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Significantly, respondent did not appeal the Decision dated 17 November 1995 of the DARAB in DARAB Case # II-380-ISA'94; consequently, the same has attained finality[42] and constitutes res judicata[43] on the issue of petitioner's status as a tenant of respondent.
	GR Nos. 175769-70 2009-01-19	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It bears stressing that the proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature. The modes of procedure and rules of evidence adopted in contempt proceedings are similar in nature to those used in criminal prosecutions. [63] While it may be argued that the Court of Appeals should have ordered respondents to comment, the issue has been rendered moot in light of our ruling on the merits. To order respondents to comment and have the Court of Appeals conduct a hearing on the contempt charge when the main case has already been disposed of in favor of PMSI would be circuitous. Where the issues have become moot, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[64]
	GR NO. 164398 2007-03-30	ALICIA C. MARANAN v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
As a final point, petitioner's plea for liberal construction of the Rules is without merit. Liberal construction of the Rules applies only in situations involving excusable formal error in a pleading, as long as the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. Utter disregard of the Rules, in our view, cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[16]
	GR NO. 146979 2006-07-27	HIKOI SUZUKI v. DIANA DE GUZMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.[28] While the Court is not unmindful of exceptional cases where this Court has set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain his failure to comply with the rules.[29] There must be at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[30]