Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEGROS ORIENTAL PLANTERS ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC-NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 195289 2014-09-24	ROBINSON’S BANK CORPORATION v. SAMUEL H. GAERLAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
To disallow the participation of RBC constitutes an evasion of the appellate court's positive duty to observe due process, a gross and patent error that can be considered as grave abuse of discretion.[46] Likewise, when an adverse effect on the substantial rights of a litigant results from the exercise of the court's discretion, certiorari may issue.[47] If not, this Court possesses the prerogative and initiative to take corrective action when necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.
	GR No. 182069 2012-07-03	ARNOLD D. VICENCIO v. REYNALDO A. VILLAR SERENO, J.
At the outset, we note that the Petition has a procedural flaw that should merit its outright dismissal. Through the Verification and Certification attached to the instant Petition, petitioner states that the contents of the Petition "are true and correct of [his] own personal knowledge and belief and based on authentic records and/or documents."[20] Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief" or "knowledge, information and belief," shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. A pleading, therefore, in which the verification is based merely on the party's knowledge and belief as in the instant Petition produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied.[21]
	GR No. 195191 2012-03-20	CONGRESSWOMAN LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ v. EUFROCINO C. CODILLA SERENO, J.
At this point, it is pertinent to note that such liberalization of the rules was also extended to petitioner. A perusal of the Verification and Certification attached to this Petition shows she attests that the contents of the Petition "are true and correct of [her] own personal knowledge, belief and based on the records in [her] possession.[23] Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief or "knowledge, information and belief," shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. A pleading, therefore, wherein the verification is based merely on the party's knowledge and belief such as in the instant Petition produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied.[24]
	GR No. 149193 2011-04-04	RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION SERENO, J.
Discretionary power is generally exercised by trial judges in furtherance of the convenience of the courts and the litigants, the expedition of business, and in the decision of interlocutory matters on conflicting facts where one tribunal could not easily prescribe to another the appropriate rule of procedure. [125] Thus, the Court ruled: In its very nature, the discretionary control conferred upon the trial judge over the proceedings had before him implies the absence of any hard-and-fast rule by which it is to be exercised, and in accordance with which it may be reviewed. But the discretion conferred upon the courts is not a willful, arbitrary, capricious and uncontrolled discretion. It is a sound, judicial discretion which should always be exercised with due regard to the rights of the parties and the demands of equity and justice. As was said in the case of The Styria vs. Morgan (186 U.S., 1, 9): "The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action." So in the case of Goodwin vs. Prime (92 Me., 355), it was said that "discretion implies that in the absence of positive law or fixed rule the judge is to decide by his view of expediency or by the demands of equity and justice."
	GR No. 192649 2011-03-09	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. R-II BUILDERS INC. PEREZ, J.
The importance of filing fees cannot be over-emphasized for they are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of each case. The payment of said fees, therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.[80] For non-payment of the correct docket fees which, for real actions, should be computed on the basis of the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof as alleged by the claimant,[81] respondent RTC should have denied admission of R-II Builders' Second Amended Complaint and ordered the dismissal of the case. Although a catena of decisions rendered by this Court eschewed the application of the doctrine laid down in the Manchester case,[82] said decisions had been consistently premised on the willingness of the party to pay the correct docket fees and/or absence of intention to evade payment of the correct docket fees. This cannot be said of R-II Builders which not only failed to pay the correct docket fees for its original complaint and Amended and Supplemental Complaint but also clearly evaded payment of the same by filing its Second Amended Complaint.
	GR No. 180917 2010-04-23	ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court has distinguished the effects of non-compliance with the requirement of verification and that of certification against forum shopping. A defective verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading and thus produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied, while the failure to certify against forum shopping shall be cause for dismissal without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, and is not curable by amendment of the initiatory pleading.[9]