Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIETTA P. SANTOS v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 174909 2016-01-20	MARCELINO M. FLORETE v. ROGELIO M. FLORETE LEONEN, J.
The Marcelino, Jr. Group filed a Petition for Certiorari[46] before the Court of Appeals questioning the Regional Trial Court Order to immediately execute its Decision.[47] On June 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order and, subsequently, a writ of preliminary injunction.[48] The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court Order of immediate execution in the Decision promulgated on November 28, 2006.[49] It also annulled the writ of execution issued pursuant to the Order of immediate execution. Rogelio, Sr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[50] but it was denied on February 23, 2007.[51]
	GR No. 154177 2004-06-09	TF VENTURES v. YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
(a) The former judgment must be final; (b) The court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (c) It must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) There must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[20] Well-settled is the rule that lis pendens requires only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties.[21] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. We have also held that the fact that the position of the parties was reversed, the plaintiffs in the first case being the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for the purpose of litis pendentia.[22]
	GR No. 154618 2004-04-14	AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES SINGAPORE LTD. v. INTEGRATED SILICON TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES CORP. YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.[28] The Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the identity of parties in Civil Cases No. 3123-2001-C and 3110-2001-C. Well-settled is the rule that lis pendens requires only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties.[29] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[30] The parties in these cases are vying over the interests of the two opposing corporations; the individuals are only incidentally impleaded, being the natural persons purportedly accused of violating these corporations' rights.