Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SPS. FLORENCIO DE CASTRO AND ROMELIA CALIBOSO DE CASTRO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185267 2014-09-17	CESAR T. QUIAMBAO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In an Order dated June 4, 2007 (RTC-Branch 154's Order), the RTC-Branch 154, through Judge Abraham B. Borreta granted the petition[12] holding that there was no probable cause to hold the petitioners for trial. Consequently, it directed the MTC to dismiss Criminal Case No. 89724 for want of probable cause.
	GR No. 205065 2014-06-04	VERGEL PAULINO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
In support thereof, Spouses Paulino cite Republic vs. Castro,[15] where the Court ruled that annulment of judgment is never resorted to as a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies. In Republic vs. TAFPA Inc.,[16] it was held that, whether through inadvertence or negligence of its deputized counsel or the OSG itself, the decision had already become final and executory and could not be annulled. To conclude otherwise would run counter to the basic principles of fair play. Besides, there would be no end to litigations if the parties, who unsuccessfully availed themselves of any of the appropriate remedies or lost them through their fault or inadvertence, could have unfavorable decisions annulled by simply bringing an action for annulment of judgment.
	GR No. 180416 2014-06-02	ADERITO Z. YUJUICO v. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO PEREZ, J.
In dismissing Criminal Case No. 89723, the MeTC held that Section 74, in relation to Section 144, of the Corporation Code only penalizes the act of "refus[ing] to allow any director, trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation to examine and copy excerpts from the records or minutes of the corporation"[16] and that act is already the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 89724. Hence, the MeTC opined, Criminal Case No. 89723-which seeks to try respondents for merely removing the stock and transfer book of STRADEC from its principal office-actually charges no offense and, therefore, cannot be sustained.[17]
	GR No. 180416 2014-06-02	ADERITO Z. YUJUICO v. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO PEREZ, J.
On 4 June 2007, the RTC issued an Order[23] granting respondents' certiorari petition and directing the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 89724. According to the RTC, the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a warrant of arrest against respondents in Criminal Case No. 89724.
	GR No. 180416 2014-06-02	ADERITO Z. YUJUICO v. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO PEREZ, J.
The RTC further pointed out that, at most, the evidence on record only supports probable cause that the respondents were withholding the stock and transfer book of STRADEC. The RTC, however, opined that refusing to allow inspection of the stock and transfer book, as opposed to refusing examination of other corporate records, is not punishable as an offense under the Corporation Code.[26] Hence, the directive of the RTC dismissing Criminal Case No. 89724.