This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.[22] Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[23] | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Section 16, Article III of the Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that "[A]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." The right to a speedy disposition of a case is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[37] The constitutional guarantee to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative or flexible concept.[38] It is consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.[39] | |||||
|
2012-01-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the Court has had the occasion to dismiss several cases owing to the infringement of a party's right to a speedy disposition of cases.[94] Dismissal of the case for violation of this right is the general rule. Bernat v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (5th Division)[95] expounds on the extent of the right to a speedy disposition of cases as follows: Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of all persons to a "speedy disposition of their cases." Nevertheless, this right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. Moreover, the determination of whether the delays are of said nature is relative and cannot be based on a mere mathematical reckoning of time. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. As a guideline, the Court in Dela Peña v. Sandiganbayan mentioned certain factors that should be considered and balanced, namely: 1) length of delay; 2) reasons for the delay; 3) assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and 4) prejudice caused by the delay. | |||||
|
2010-01-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law.[14] This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest.[15] The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution.[16] As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.[17] | |||||