Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANDRES LAPITAN v. SCANDIA INC.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
On March 6, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9373[8] resolving to seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain conditions. On March 21, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9376[9] resolving to exercise the OTP the PCOS and CCS hardware and software in accordance with the AES contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM in connection with the May 10, 2010 elections subject to the following conditions: (1) the warranties agreed upon in the AES contract shall be in full force and effect; (2) the original price for the hardware and software covered by the OTP as specified in the AES contract shall be maintained, excluding the cost of the 920 units of PCOS and related peripherals previously purchased for use in the 2010 special elections; and (3) all other services related to the 2013 AES shall be subject to public bidding. On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9377[10] resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIM's offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012 and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract[11] (Extension Agreement, for brevity). The aforesaid Extension Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012.[12] On even date, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 9378[13] resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter's PCOS machines (hardware and software) to be used in the upcoming May 2013 elections and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on behalf of the Comelec. The Deed of Sale[14] was forthwith executed.
	GR Nos. 170339 2010-03-09	ROLANDO E. SISON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The same flaws attended the procurement of 119 bags of Fortune cement,[12] electric power generator set,[13] various construction materials,[14] two Desert Dueler tires[15] and a computer and its accessories.[16]
	GR No. 175550 2008-09-17	DASMARIÑAS WATER DISTRICT v. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO CORONA, J.
Specifically, the action was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC because it was incapable of pecuniary estimation as provided in Sec. 19 (1) of BP 129,[29] as amended by RA 7691.[30] The basic issue was petitioner's entitlement to the right provided under Sec. 39 of PD 198. Although there was a claim for a sum of money, it was purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought.[31]