This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-05-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Citing the rulings of this Court in Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals[12] and British Airways v. Court of Appeals,[13] the petitioner avers that the CA erred in ruling that in denying its motion for leave to file a third-party complaint, the RTC acted in accordance with the Rules of Court and case law. The petitioner maintains that it raised genuine issues in its answer; hence, it was improper for the trial court to render judgment on the pleadings:With due respect, the judgment on the pleadings affirmed by the Court of Appeals is not, likewise, proper considering that the Answer with Third-Party Complaint, although it admitted the obligation to respondent, tendered an issue of whether the respondent's claim is connected with the third-party claim. | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The nature of an airline's contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely: (1) a contract to deliver a cargo or merchandise to its destination, and (2) a contract to transport passengers to their destination.[26] In this case, when CAL confirmed the reservations, it bound itself to transport private respondents on its flight on 13 June 1990. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners, however, insist that respondent Leopoldo Sevilla employed fraud and undue influence on the person of the donor. This argument involves appreciation of the evidence.[25] The settled rule is that factual findings of the trial court, if affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect.[26] There are exceptional circumstances when findings of fact of lower courts may be set aside[27] but none is present in the case at bar. Indeed, neither fraud nor undue influence can be inferred from the following circumstance alleged by the petitioners, to wit | |||||