Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELSA D. MEDADO v. HEIRS OF LATE ANTONIO CONSING

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 213696 2015-12-09	QUANTUM FOODS v. MARCELINO ESLOYO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In China Banking Corp. v. Mondragon Int'l. Phils., Inc.,[57] the Court had the occasion to rule that the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of allowing its petition to be given due course.[58] Besides, the verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the court or tribunal may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules,[59] as the NLRC did.
	GR No. 197011 2015-01-28	ESSENCIA Q. MANARPIIS v. TEXAN PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We first address petitioner's contention on the alleged formal infirmity of the petition for certiorari filed before the CA. Petitioner argued that the same was defective as the jurat therein was based on the mere community tax certificate of respondent Rialubin-Tan, instead of a government-issued identification card required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Such ground was never raised by herein petitioner in her comment on the CA petition, thus, it cannot be validly raised by the petitioner at this stage.[18]
	GR No. 200191 2014-08-20	LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ v. NORMA VILLEGAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In fact, Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.[38] To reiterate, both Lourdes and Cecilia are co-plaintiffs in the ejectment suit. Thus, they share a commonality of interest and cause of action as against respondents. Notably, even the petition for review filed before the CA indicated that they are the petitioners therein and that the same was filed on their behalf. Hence, the lone signature of Lourdes on the verification attached to the CA petition constituted substantial compliance with the rules.[39] As held in the case of Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing:[40]
	GR No. 194062 2013-06-17	REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION v. PETRON CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Anent the first issue, the general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a certiorari petition may lie, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.[6]
	GR No. 178952 2013-04-10	HEIRS OF LAZARO GALLARDO v. PORFERIO SOLIMAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The same position was taken in Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing,[42] where the Court held that "where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of [non] forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action."