Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REGHIS M. ROMERO II v. SENATOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-13-2366 2015-02-04	JILL M. TORMIS v. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES MENDOZA, J.
The subjudice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.[21] The rationale for the rule was spelled out in Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez,[22] where it was stated that it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.[23]
	GR No. 156208 2014-06-30	NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION BRION, J.
By jurisprudence, the phrase "improper conduct" refers to acts constituting gross disrespect to the court that detracts from the dignity and integrity of a court of justice.[146] Improper conduct may be in the form of unfair criticisms;[147] the continuing resistance to the Court's final judgment;[148] the employment of delaying tactics to obstruct the administration of justice[149] or otherwise unduly delaying the case;[150] and the violation of the sub judice rule.[151]
	GR No. 205956 2014-02-12	P & SUPT. HANSEL M. MARANTAN v. ATTY. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO MENDOZA, J.
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,[4] which reads:Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. x x x a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
	GR No. 205956 2014-02-12	P & SUPT. HANSEL M. MARANTAN v. ATTY. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO MENDOZA, J.
For a comment to be considered as contempt of court "it must really appear" that such does impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice.[7] What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all-important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case.[8] The specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.[9]
	GR No. 160641 2012-06-20	RAFAEL J. ROXAS v. ARTEMIO S. TIPON PEREZ, J.
The first issue has been rendered moot and academic with the dismissal of the principal action for dissolution. The directive for audit and the designation of Financial Catalyst, Inc. as the auditor, both incidents to the main action, have already lost their bearing. An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination of the issue would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[17]
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
[56] G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 396, 403.