This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| There is also no dispute that it was only on 20 October 2000 when the PNCC Board approved a resolution expressly admitting PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans. This was the first Board Resolution admitting liability for the Marubeni loans, for PNCC never admitted liability for these debts in the past. Even Radstock admitted that PNCC's 1994 Financial Statements did not reflect the Marubeni loans.[37] Also, former PNCC Chairman Arthur Aguilar stated during the Senate hearings that "the Marubeni claim was never in the balance sheet x x x nor was it in a contingent account."[38] Miriam M. Pasetes, SVP Finance of PNCC, and Atty. Herman R. Cimafranca of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, confirmed this fact, thus:SEN. DRILON. x x x And so, PNCC itself did not recognize this as an obligation but the board suddenly recognized it as an obligation. It was on that basis that the case was filed, is that correct? In fact, the case hinges on - they knew that this claim has prescribed but because of that board resolution which recognized the obligation they filed their complaint, is that correct? | |||||
|
2008-08-29 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| To warrant intervention, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.[31] The interest, which entitles a person to intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[32] | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Felipe could have simply intervened[13] in the trial court proceedings to enable him to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings. A motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court.[14] The purpose of intervention is not to obstruct or unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial. The purpose is merely to afford one, not an original party but possessing a certain right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest.[15] Indeed, Felipe could have easily joined his parents as defendants in resisting the claim of Gothong Lines. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The purpose of intervention is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest.[19] Before this Court is a striking example of the disastrous results incident to an improper intervention. By being admitted as intervenors, petitioners were able to elevate the collection case all the way to this Court to contest.the award of damages that was not directed against them but against the main defendants who did not appeal from the judgment. | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| warrant intervention, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation,[17] and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties[18] nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.[19] The interest, which entitles a person to intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[20] Civil Case No. 6695 was an action for permanent injunction and damages. As a stranger to the case, private respondent had neither legal interest in a permanent injunction nor an interest on the damages to be imposed, if any, in Civil Case No. 6695. To allow him to intervene would have unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the case. We agree with the Court of Appeals that to make the injunctive writ applicable against private respondent, petitioner should have impleaded the latter as an additional defendant in Civil Case No. 6695. Petitioner's insistence that it had rested its case and hence was too late | |||||