Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175399 2009-10-27	OPHELIA L. TUATIS v. SPS. ELISEO ESCOL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 states that non-compliance with any of the requirements stated therein shall constitute sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. However, the Court, in several cases,[36] also declared that said provision must not be taken to mean that the petition shall be automatically dismissed in every instance of non-compliance. The power conferred upon the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal, or even an original action, as in this case, is discretionary and not merely ministerial. With that affirmation comes the caution that such 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.[37]
	GR NO. 159915 2009-03-12	BACHRACH CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY BRION, J.
In a long line of cases, this Court has held that the CA's authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief is a matter of judicial discretion.[12] Thus, a dismissal based on this ground is neither mandatory nor ministerial; the fundamentals of justice and fairness must be observed, bearing in mind the background and web of circumstances surrounding the case.[13]
	GR No. 173375 2008-09-25	LEONCIO D. MANGAHAS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Given the foregoing, we find no reason to reverse the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals and disturb its conclusions therein. Petitioners miserably failed to adduce credible and sufficient substantiation that any inadvertence was committed by the Post Office of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. Instead of supporting their cause, the affidavits submitted by petitioners, taken together with the mere photocopy of Registry Receipt No. A-2094 without the presentation of the original thereof, actually lead this Court to doubt whether petitioners' counsel has been sincere in his dealings with the courts. Needless to stress, a lawyer is bound by ethical principles in the conduct of cases before the courts at all times.[34]