Yao v CA; GR No. 132428; 24 Oct 2000

FACTS:
Petitioner George Yao was convicted for unfair competition for the sale of counterfeit General Electric (GE) lamp starters. He filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s due process of law.

HELD:
YES. Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is thus a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding ipse dixit.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *