This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-21 |
|||||
| It appears that on May 21, 1990, both parties agreed[14] to await the decision in CA G.R. SP No. 20424,[15] which involved similar facts, issues and parties. The RTC, consequently, deferred the resolution of the pending petition. The appellate court eventually rendered its decision in that case finding that the petitioners were not entitled to the declaratory relief prayed for as they had no legal interest in the controversy. Upon elevation to the Supreme Court as UDK Case No. 9948, the petition for review on certiorari was denied for being insufficient in form and substance. [16] | |||||
|
2005-09-21 |
|||||
| Finally, on the issue of damages, petitioner asserts that he impleaded the 57 respondents in good faith since the award of the stalls to them was made during the pendency of the action.[43] Private respondents refute this assertion and argue that petitioner filed this action in bad faith and with the intention of harassing them inasmuch as he had already filed CA G.R. SP. No. 20424 even before then.[44] The RTC, affirmed by the CA, held that petitioner should pay attorney's fees "for unnecessarily dragging into Court the 57 private respondents who (were) bonafide businessmen and stall holders in the public market of Panabo."[45] | |||||