This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This liberal exception does not obtain in this case. Petitioners' contention that their former counsel did not receive the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated April 30, 1998 is misleading. The records of the NLRC, as confirmed by the Court of Appeals, reveal that the decision was received by petitioners' former counsel on July 20, 1998.[12] The presumption that the decision was delivered to petitioners' former counsel or to a person in his office duly authorized to receive papers for him therefore stands. Petitioners have not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.[13] | |||||
|
2007-02-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the outset it must be pointed out that petitioners' direct recourse to this Court via petition for Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, Prohibition With Prayer For Provisional Remedy is an utter disregard of the hierarchy of courts and should have been dismissed outright. This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction is not exclusive.[4] It is shared by this Court with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals.[5] Such concurrence of jurisdiction does not give the petitioners unbridled freedom of choice of court forum.[6] A direct recourse of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[7] | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, this is an instance where the due process routine vigorously pursued by Bienvenido Juani and his successor-in-interest is but a clear-cut afterthought meant to delay the settlement of an otherwise uncomplicated legal dispute. Aside from clogging court dockets, the strategy is deplorably a common curse resorted to by losing litigants in the hope of evading manifest obligations.[33] This Court will ever be vigilant to nip in the bud any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice, fair play and the prompt implementation of final and executory judgments.[34] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| If at all, the present petition only demonstrates petitioners' effort to hold at bay the enforcement of the final decision of the CA. The Court will not tolerate this abhorrent practice. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. The imperatives of fair play and an effective and efficient administration of justice demand that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party be not, through some clever maneuvers devised by the unsporting loser, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[11] So it must be here. | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| [36] Rubenito v. Lagata, G.R. No. 140959, December 21, 2004, 447 SCRA 417, 426. | |||||