This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, while respondents assailed the content of the RTC decision, they failed to show that the RTC did not have the authority to decide the case on appeal. As we held in Ybañez v. Court of Appeals:[26] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, we tackle the three (3) procedural issues raised by respondent Uy in his September 6, 2000 Comment[20] to bolster his position that the petition should be dismissed. Respondent contends that the petition ought to be dismissed outright as petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration from the assailed CA Decision, an alleged pre-requisite before this Court can entertain petitions under Rule 45. Respondent cites Ybañez v. Court of Appeals,[21] Tan v. Court of Appeals,[22] Villarama v. NLRC,[23] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,[24] and Sunshine Transportation, Inc. v. NLRC[25] as authorities. Moreover, respondent Uy maintains that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was defective as only one of the petitioners affixed his signature, (Ramon P. Ereneta) and such sole signatory cannot represent petitioner BCDA as no Board Resolution was presented conferring such authority. Lastly, said respondent asserts that there is no proper joinder of parties considering that the major issue raised by petitioner BCDA is its invocation of RA 7227. | |||||
|
2005-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Acts that shall warrant annulment of a judgment were further explained by the Court in the case of Ybañez v. Court of Appeals:[16] | |||||