This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Further, in a motion for inhibition, "[t]he movant must x x x prove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial."[14] "Bare allegations of partiality x x x [is not sufficient] in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor."[15] Petitioner's bare allegations in his motion to inhibit are not adequate grounds for the disqualification or inhibition of the trial judge. Thus, credence should not be given to the issue of alleged prejudice and partiality of the trial judge. | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Technicalities that impede the cause of justice must be avoided. In Heirs of Generoso A. Juaban v. Bancale,[22] which also finds application to the present case, the Court elaborated: The court has the discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant's appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. The discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case. Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. | |||||