This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-05 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Still, the Sandiganbayan's error in not allowing Reyes to ask for leave to file a demurrer to the evidence cannot be regarded as capricious and whimsical as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[25] Courts have wide latitude for denying the filing of demurrers to evidence.[26] Indeed, an order denying a motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself is not subject to appeal or certiorari action before judgment.[27] The remedy is to assign the order of denial as an error on appeal after judgment.[28] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner avers that the January 10, 2002 Order of the RTC denying the Demurrer to Evidence of respondent was interlocutory, and as such could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari.[30] The RTC did not commit a grave abuse of its discretion in issuing its January 10, 2002 Order. Petitioner maintains that respondent executed 67 separate loan obligations evidenced by 67 separate promissory notes, with different amounts and maturity dates. It avers that each of the loans, as evidenced by each of the promissory notes, may properly be the subject of a separate action; thus, each promissory note is an actionable document. Moreover, the real estate mortgage executed by the spouses secured an obligation only to a fixed amount of P7,000,000.00 which is covered by Promissory Note Nos. 1 to 31, whereas the loans secured by the spouses covered by the Promissory Note Nos. 32 to 67 for the total amount of P12,672,000.31 were not secured by the real estate mortgage. Petitioner insists that it was proper to file the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage only for respondent's loan account covered by the 36 promissory notes for the amount of P7,755,733.64. It was not barred from filing a separate action for the collection of the P12,672,000.31 against respondent in the RTC for the drawdowns as evidenced by Promissory Note Nos. 34 to 67. What should apply, petitioner asserts, is the ruling of this Court in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court[31] and Quiogue v. Bautista,[32] and not the ruling of this Court in Bachrach which involves only one promissory note. | |||||