This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-07-28 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| On August 16, 1985, petitioner filed against respondents Civil Case No. 3929, which was a Complaint for Annulment or Rescission of Sale, Damages with Preliminary Injunction.[65] Coastal alleged that, despite the Writ of Attachment issued in its favor in the still pending Civil Case No. 21272, the Consortium had sold the properties to NSC. Further, despite the attachment of the properties, the Consortium was allegedly able to sell and place them beyond the reach of VISCO's other creditors.[66] Thus imputing bad faith to respondent banks' actions, petitioner said that the sale was intended to defraud VISCO's other creditors. | |||||
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same. Delay in the disposition of even one case constitutes gross inefficiency.[10] In the determination of the proper penalty, a number of factors have generally been taken into consideration, namely: the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. However, under the new amendments to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, effective 1 October 2001, specifically Sec. 4, undue delay in rendering a decision in a case is classified as a less serious offense that merits under Sec. 10 (B) either suspension from office or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P19,999.00. However, under the circumstances, we shall not impose the foregoing penalty on respondent Judge considering that his less serious offense of undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 2127 has been exacerbated and overshadowed by the more serious offense of willful defiance and contumacious refusal of respondent Judge to obey the lawful orders of this Court. | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, as the Solicitor General noted, the appellant did not present evidence disputing Jimmy Escala's presence at the crime scene. Escala, who was just an armslength away from the victim, Rolando Villamin, at the time of the incident, positively identified the appellant as one of the assailants and confirmed the fact of robbery and the stabbing incident in both his sworn statement and testimony in court. Assuming, arguendo, that it was not Ramil Matic who stabbed the victim, it has been held that whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the homicide.[19] | |||||