This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This much was pronounced in the case of Intengan v. Court of Appeals,[10] where it was held that the only exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits is in the case of a written permission of the depositor. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, it was held in Rabanal v. Tugade[10] that an attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Implicit with this directive is the command that all lawyers are duty-bound to keep abreast of the law and legal developments as well as to participate in continuing legal education programs.[11] All law practitioners should be fully conversant of the requirements for the filing of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[12] Ignorantia legis non excusat.[13] Ignorance encompasses not only substantive but also procedural laws.[14] | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| should be fully conversant with the requirements for the institution of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. On the other hand, ignorantia legis non excusat.[23] Ignorance in this regard encompasses not only substantive but also procedural laws. A final note. Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, | |||||