Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 146972 2008-01-29	B & I REALTY CO. v. TEODORO CASPE and PURIFICACION AGUILAR CASPE CORONA, J.
On the other hand, however, the CA was correct in applying the 1997 Rules of Court. Procedural laws may be given retroactive application in cases of actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.[13] In this case, the action was still pending in the RTC when the 1997 Rules of Court was promulgated on July 1, 1997. The RTC decided the case on August 26, 1997. Thus, retroactive application of the 1997 Rules was proper. Ultimately, the CA did not commit any error when it granted respondents' appeal. It correctly applied the 1997 Rules of Court and rightly ruled in favor of prescription as the same was supported by the evidence on record.
	GR NO. 151037 2005-06-23	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. TROY FRANCIS L. MONASTERIO QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, since convenience is the raison d'etre of the rules on venue,[24] venue stipulation should be deemed merely permissive, and that interpretation should be adopted which most serves the parties' convenience.[25] Contrawise, the rules mandated by the Rules of Court should govern.[26] Accordingly, since the present case for the collection of sum of money filed by herein respondent is a personal action,[27] we find no compelling reason why it could not be instituted in the RTC of Naga City, the place where plaintiff resides.