This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2007-02-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, if the petition is to be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45, the petition would fail because only judgments or final orders that completely dispose of the case can be the subject of a petition for review.[14] In this case, the assailed Orders are only interlocutory orders. Petitioner should have proceeded with the trial of the case and if the trial court renders an unfavorable verdict, petitioner should assail the Orders as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment to be rendered in this case.[15] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction,[33] or an adverse decision, as in the instant case. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Without any express provision of the law, an appeal cannot be undertaken as the same is not one of the rights of the litigants. Appeal is more of a privilege given to a party by the laws or procedures. It is not a natural right or a part of due process.[22] | |||||