“Frivolous” suits as understood by general jurisprudence 1) It has been held that a frivolous appeal is one presenting no justiciable question, or one so readily recognizable as devoid of merits on the face of the record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can ever succeed . The instant case is one such instance in which the appeal is evidently without merit, taken manifestly for delay. (HUANG, ET AL. vs. ASSOCIATED REALTY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., G.R. No. L-26421, October 29, 1966, citing De la Cruz, et al. vs. Blanco, et al., 73 Phil. 596); 2) In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that an administrative complaint was baseless and frivolous because it was filed with no other plain and clear purpose than to harass the respondents, and “exact vengeance on them for rendering adverse judgments against him and his clients.” The act of filing was decreed to run counter to the explicit mandate of the Code of Professional Responsibility in Canon 11 thereof. (Balaoing vs. Judge Calderon, A.M. No. RTJ-90-58, April 27, 1993); 3) In a land registration case, the Supreme Court referred to the term frivolous as similar to “vexatious” or “merely intended to harass.”(ELISA D. GABRIEL vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, G.R. No. L-17956, September 30, 1963); 4) In an agrarian case, the term “frivolous” was closely associated by the Supreme Court with suits being “intended merely for delay.” (REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165155); 5) In ruling on a petition for mandamus to set aside the order of dismissal and to order court to give due course to an appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal is frivolous, stating in the same breath that the petition was no longer a justiciable question and was merely interposed for purposes of delay. (MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY vs. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, G.R. No. L-19161, April 29, 1966);

Frivolous

Download DOC Report

Upload
dragongirl2366
View
219
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

suits

Citation preview

“Frivolous” suits as understood by general jurisprudence

1) It has been held that a frivolous appeal is one presenting no justiciable question, or one so readily recognizable as devoid of merits on the face of the record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can ever succeed. The instant case is one such instance in which the appeal is evidently without merit, taken manifestly for delay. (HUANG, ET AL. vs. ASSOCIATED REALTY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., G.R. No. L-26421, October 29, 1966, citing De la Cruz, et al. vs. Blanco, et al., 73 Phil. 596);

2) In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that an administrative complaint was baseless and frivolous because it was filed with no other plain and clear purpose than to harass the respondents, and “exact vengeance on them for rendering adverse judgments against him and his clients.” The act of filing was decreed to run counter to the explicit mandate of the Code of Professional Responsibility in Canon 11 thereof. (Balaoing vs. Judge Calderon, A.M. No. RTJ-90-58, April 27, 1993);

3) In a land registration case, the Supreme Court referred to the term frivolous as similar to “vexatious” or “merely intended to harass.”(ELISA D. GABRIEL vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, G.R. No. L-17956, September 30, 1963);

4) In an agrarian case, the term “frivolous” was closely associated by the Supreme Court with suits being “intended merely for delay.” (REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165155);

5) In ruling on a petition for mandamus to set aside the order of dismissal and to order court to give due course to an appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal is frivolous, stating in the same breath that the petition was no longer a justiciable question and was merely interposed for purposes of delay. (MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY vs. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, G.R. No. L-19161, April 29, 1966);

6) In another case, the term “frivolous” was used interchangeably with the word “dilatory.” (PILAR GREGORIO vs.THE HONORABLE EULOGIO MENCIAS, G.R. No. L-16227, September 29, 1962).