This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The antecedents which gave rise to this long-drawn case are, for the most part, set forth in the Court's Decision dated August 23, 1991 in consolidated cases G.R. No. 93832 and G.R. No. 93839[3] involving the same parties and in its subsequent Decision of May 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 130328.[4] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| While the CA reversed the aforementioned order and resolution of the SEC en banc,[12] this Court, on review, rendered, on May 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 130328, a Decision[13] setting aside that of the CA and reinstating the heretofore reversed SEC order and resolution, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed CA Decision, dated 21 August 1997 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the SEC en banc's Order dated 21 December 1995, and Resolution, dated 24 June 1996, are REINSTATED. (Emphasis added.) | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The antecedents which gave rise to this long-drawn case are, for the most part, set forth in the Court's Decision dated August 23, 1991 in consolidated cases G.R. No. 93832 and G.R. No. 93839[3] involving the same parties and in its subsequent Decision of May 31, 2000 in G.R. No. 130328.[4] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Lastly, there is no merit to petitioner FMIC's contention that the appellate court erred in awarding an amount allegedly not asked nor prayed for by respondents. Whether the exact amount of the relief was not expressly prayed for is of no moment for the reason that the relief was plainly warranted by the allegations of the respondents as well as by the facts as found by the appellate court. A party is entitled to as much relief as the facts may warrant.[47] | |||||