This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed only in connection with cases pending before this Court, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. No such motion may be filed before any lower courts.[64] In opting for the liberal application of the rules in the interest of equity and justice, we cannot look with favor on a course of action which would place the administration of justice in a straight jacket for then the result would be a poor kind of justice if there would be justice at all.[65] | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| D. Based on orderly procedure and sound administration of justice, it is imperative that the matter of forfeiture be exclusively tried in the main plunder case to avoid possible double jeopardy entanglements and worse conflicting decisions by 2 divisions of the Sandiganbayan on the matter of forfeiture as a penal sanction.[11] (Emphasis added.) | |||||
|
2008-02-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Even granting arguendo that the instant certiorari petition is an appropriate remedy, still this Court cannot grant the writ prayed for because we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA in the challenged issuances. The rule, as it stands now without exception, is that the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot be extended, except in cases before this Court, as one of last resort, which may, in its sound discretion grant the extension requested.[39] This rule also applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended.[40] Thus, the appellate court correctly denied petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration. | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| All the foregoing considered, the CA should have noted that R.A. No. 8799 was already in force and effect, for more than five months, and therefore applicable at the time of the promulgation of the herein assailed Resolution on February 2, 2001. Although the petition filed with the CA was procedurally deficient for non-compliance with the rules on material date and certification of non-forum shopping, the CA should have reconsidered its Decision on the question of jurisdiction in view of the advent of R.A. No. 8799 transferring cases originally cognizable by the SEC to the Regional Trial Courts. Technicalities must give way to the realities of the situation. It is elementary that jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the jurisdiction to hear and decide a case, is conferred by law[44] and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine and conveniently set aside.[45] | |||||