This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In addition, we also award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[78] The commission of the crime in AAA's grandmother's dwelling, although not alleged in the Information (as now required by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[79]), was duly proven and can also serve as basis for the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code as we ruled in People v. Blancaflor[80] and People v. Catubig.[81] We held in Catubig that the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to its effectivity.[82] We reiterated this doctrine in People v. Victor[83] and People v. Legaspi.[84] | |||||
|
2004-06-21 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[12] While CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 was awaiting disposition by the appellate court, Arnel V. Herrera, one of the original petitioners in Civil Case No. 93-66530, joined by twenty-seven intervenors, to wit: Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T. Mendoza, Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon, Ma. Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao, Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos, Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo, Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding, Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario L. Leonor-Lacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-Palma, Margarita Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P. Chico-Paguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro, manifested that they were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal. A similar manifestation and motion was later filed by intervenors Mary Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C. Rabara, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G. Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D. Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Cañedo, Clarisa SJ. Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo, Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. The Court of Appeals ruled that its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 would not apply to them. | |||||
|
2004-06-21 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Section 26[45] of the Medical Act of 1959 provides for the administrative and judicial remedies that respondents herein can avail to question Resolution No. 26 of the Board of Medicine, namely: (a) appeal the unfavorable judgment to the PRC; (b) should the PRC ruling still be unfavorable, to elevate the matter on appeal to the Office of the President; and (c) should they still be unsatisfied, to ask for a review of the case or to bring the case to court via a special civil action of certiorari. Thus, as a rule, mandamus will not lie when administrative remedies are still available.[46] However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where, as in this case, a pure question of law is raised.[47] On this issue, no reversible error may, thus, be laid at the door of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, when it refused to dismiss Civil Case No. 93-66530. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of civil indemnity as well as moral damages awarded by the trial court should be reduced to P50,000 only.[46] But in addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should be awarded to the complainant by way of example for the public good and to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from taking advantage of their own daughters.[47] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are by their nature highly penal, such that respondent stands to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[28] Mere suspicion, as in this case, that a judge was partial to a party is not enough.[29] Inasmuch as what is imputed against respondent judge connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, it would entail dismissal from the service, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.[30] Even in an administrative case, the rules demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge of the witness. The Judiciary to which herein respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after the presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.[31] | |||||