Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY v. COURT OF APPELAS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals,[32] while we said that, strictly, a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective ce1iification, the verification, signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is substantial compliance because it served the purpose of the Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action or proceeding involving the same issues. We then explained that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient administration of justice which should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it.[33]
	GR No. 195668 2014-06-25	PEOPLE v. MA. HARLETA VELASCO Y BRIONES BERSAMIN, J.
The nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation.[21] As a co-conspirator, then, Inovero's civil liability was similar to that of a joint tortfeasor under the rules of the civil law. Joint tortfeasors are those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.[22] They are also referred to as those who act together in committing wrong or whose acts, if independent of each other, unite in causing a single injury.[23] Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. In other words, joint tortfeasors are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. As regards the extent of their respective liabilities, the Court expressed in Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals:[24]
	GR No. 183952 2013-09-09	CZARINA T. MALVAR v. KRAFT FOOD PHILS. BERSAMIN, J.
These circumstances show that Malvar and the respondents needed an escape from greater liability towards the Intervenor, and from the possible obstacle to their plan to settle to pay. It cannot be simply assumed that only Malvar would be liable towards the Intervenor at that point, considering that the Intervenor, had it joined the negotiations as her lawyer, would have tenaciously fought all the way for her to receive literally everything that she was entitled to, especially the benefits from the stock option. Her rush to settle because of her financial concerns could have led her to accept the respondents' offer, which offer could be further reduced by the Intervenor's expected demand for compensation. Thereby, she and the respondents became joint tort-feasors who acted adversely against the interests of the Intervenor. Joint tort-feasors are those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.[54] They are also referred to as those who act together in committing wrong or whose acts, if independent of each other, unite in causing a single injury.[55] Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. As regards the extent of their respective liabilities, the Court said in Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals:[56]
	GR No. 183788 2010-04-05	KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, [35] while we said that, strictly, a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification, the verification, signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is substantial compliance inasmuch as it served the purpose of the Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action or proceeding involving the same issues. We then explained that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient administration of justice which should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it. [36]
	AC. NO. 7056 2006-09-13	PLUS BUILDERS v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA PANGANIBAN, CJ
Good faith, fairness and candor constitute the essence of membership in the legal profession.[15] Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never abuse their right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected. Neither should they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party or to misuse judicial processes. These acts constitute serious transgression of their professional oath.[16]
	GR NO. 159270 2005-08-22	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals,[40] the Court declared that the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and solidary, to wit:It may be said, as a general rule, that negligence in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff's, is the proximate cause of the injury. Accordingly, where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasors. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the case of Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs. Court of Appeals,[31] while we said that, strictly, a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification, the verification, signed by petitioner's counsel in said case, is substantial compliance inasmuch as it served the purpose of the Rules of informing the Court of the pendency of another action or proceeding involving the same issues.[32] We then explained that procedural rules are instruments in the speedy and efficient administration of justice which should be used to achieve such end and not to derail it.[33]