Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VILLAREAL v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188944 2014-07-09	SPS. RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT v. FELIPE C. SIAPNO SERENO, C.J.
Indeed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is one that may be waived by a party to a case. In order to avail of that defense, one must timely raise an objection before the court.[16]
	GR No. 180543 2010-07-27	KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. LEONCIO M. JANOLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, a trial court has no authority to consider a motion to lift the order of default where such motion was not made under oath. [58] Moreover, a motion to lift an order of default must allege with particularity the facts constituting the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect which caused the failure to answer. [59]
	GR No. 170427 2009-01-30	ROBERTO R. DAVID v. JUDGE CARMELITA S. GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA
We also note that petitioner's motions were not motions to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. On the contrary, the motions invoked the RTC's jurisdiction while seeking the following affirmative reliefs: to grant extension, deny the motion to declare petitioner in default and lift the order of default. Thus, petitioner waived any defect in the service of summons by publication or even want of process because for the RTC to validly act on his motions, it necessarily acquired jurisdiction over his person.[15]
	GR No. 177931 2008-12-08	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DEANG MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Good faith is central to the concept of "excusable neglect" justifying failure to answer.[30] An attempt to cover up the procedural lapses and obscure the technical imperfections negates good faith on the part of the party imploring the accommodating arm of the court.
	GR NO. 155488 2006-12-06	ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, when a party files a motion to lift order of default, she must also show that she has a meritorious defense or that something would be gained by having the order of default set aside.[38] The term meritorious defense implies that the applicant has the burden of proving such a defense in order to have the judgment set aside. The cases usually do not require such a strong showing. The test employed appears to be essentially the same as used in considering summary judgment, that is, whether there is enough evidence to present an issue for submission to the trier of fact, or a showing that on the undisputed facts it is not clear that the judgment is warranted as a matter of law. [39] The defendant must show that she has a meritorious defense otherwise the grant of her motion will prove to be a useless exercise. Thus, her motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted.[40]
	GR NO. 153925 2006-08-10	FOOD TERMINAL v. SHOPPERS PARADISE FTI CORPORATION CORONA, J.
To sustain imputations of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction against Judge Reyes-Carpio, petitioners should have presented evidence that the latter's issuance of the assailed writ of preliminary injunction was capricious, whimsical, despotic or arbitrary.[11] Both the trial court and the appellate court found no trace of any of these on the part of the trial judge. The CA even held that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was not "bereft of findings by the trial court of the right of Shoppers Paradise to the injunctive relief."[12] It likewise held that, under the lease contract, respondent had a clear and unmistakable legal right to the disputed premises threatened to be padlocked or repossessed by petitioners.