This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, in Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc,[142] this court held that mere collection of documents by the PCGG does not make such documents public documents per se under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court: The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in the course of its investigations does not make them per se public records referred to in the quoted rule. | |||||
|
2015-11-23 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| After the 1986 People Power Revolution, Pantranco was sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government.[9] Pantranco was allegedly part of Ferdinand Marcos' ill-gotten wealth and was acquired by using Gregorio Araneta III and the Potencianos as dummies.[10] | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| At the inception of the present case, both the spouses Pacaña were not impleaded as parties-plaintiffs. The Court notes, however, that they are indispensable parties to the case as the alleged owners of Rovila Water Supply. Without their inclusion as parties, there can be no final determination of the present case. They possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence. Their interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with that of the other parties.[58] | |||||