This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners contend that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in convicting them based only on the evidence presented by the prosecution. They attribute their failure to present evidence to their former counsel's (Atty. Manuel Corpuz's) negligence and claim that they were denied due process of law. They argue that Atty. Corpuz's failure to inform them about the developments affecting their case and the scheduled hearing for the reception of evidence resulting in the waiver of presentation of defense evidence, as they were not able to present evidence in their behalf constitutes gross negligence that warrants the application of the exception to the general rule that "negligence and dereliction of duty of the counsel bind the client."[17] | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court also notes the respondent's withdrawal of its opposition to the admission of the petitioners' amended and supplemental complaint, just so the proceedings before the RTC which have been suspended for more than eight years may continue. As the records show, the case below is still at its pre-trial stage. Indeed, the inordinate delay is no longer justified by the petitioners' persistence to have their amended complaint admitted. It is incumbent that trial should continue to settle the issues between the parties once and for all. Court litigation which is primarily a search for truth must proceed; and a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth.[30] Concomitantly, neither the parties nor their lawyers should be allowed to dictate the pace by which a case proceeds. The Judge shall see to it that the proceedings are expedited by all means available to him, including the issuance of orders to force the parties to go to trial if a settlement could not be reached within a reasonable time.[31] | |||||