This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A reading of Merdegia's administrative complaint[7] shows an apparent failure to understand that cases are not always decided in one's favor, and that an allegation of bias must stem from an extrajudicial source other than those attendant to the merits and the developments in the case.[8] In this light, we cannot but attribute to Atty. Adaza the failure to impress upon his client the features of our adversarial system, the substance of the law on ethics and respect for the judicial system, and his own failure to heed what his duties as a professional and as an officer of the Court demand of him in acting for his client before our courts. | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In order for this Court to sustain a charge of partiality and prejudice brought against a judge, there must be convincing proof to show that he or she is, indeed, biased and partial. Bare allegations are not enough. Bias and prejudice are serious charges which cannot be presumed particularly if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.[38] There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.[39] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In order for this Court to sustain a charge of partiality and prejudice brought against a judge, there must be convincing proof to show that he or she is, indeed, biased and partial. Bare allegations are not enough. Bias and prejudice are serious charges which cannot be presumed particularly if weighed against a judge's sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.[38] There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.[39] | |||||
|
2004-03-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| participation in the case.[34] Judge Bermejo claims that he was moved by good faith and the interest of justice, particularly in granting the defendant her motion for extension to post a supersedeas bond, considering that the bond was ready for signing anyway. The Court is inclined to give respondent Judge the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of his Judgment in the unlawful detainer case, which was in favor of the plaintiffs. However, by countenancing, permitting, and even creating the many delays in obvious disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Rules of Court and the Rule on Summary Procedure, Judge Bermejo has put in question his partiality. It bears reminding him that a judge must at | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Rule 122, §1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "(a)ny party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy." It has been held that the word "party" in the provision in question includes not only the government and the accused but other persons as well, such as the complainant who may be affected by the judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings. The complainant has an interest in the civil liability arising from the crime, unless of course he has reserved to bring a separate civil action to recover the civil liability.[20] Hence, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is that of a witness for the prosecution.[21] Ordinarily, the appeal of criminal cases involves as parties only the accused, as appellants, and the State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, as the appellee. The participation of the private offended party would be a mere surplusage, if the State were simply to seek the affirmation of a judgment of conviction. However, where the Office of the Solicitor General takes a contrary position and recommends, as in this case, the acquittal of the accused, the complainant's right to be heard on the question of award of indemnity and damages arises. In the interest of justice and equity and to provide perspective for this appeal, therefore, the Court hereby allows in this case the memorandum filed by complainant which is hereby admitted as part of the records of this appeal. | |||||