Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185746 2016-01-20	LUCITA TIOROSIO-ESPINOSA v. PRESIDING JUDGE VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA JARDELEZA, J.
In Engineering Construct ion Inc. v. National Power Corporation,[38] we expanded the RCPI doctrine to likewise exclude consequential damages and attorney's fees from execution pending appeal.[39] The doctrine has since been reiterated in Heirs of Santiago C. Divinagracia v. Ruiz,[40] International School, Inc. (Manila) v. Court of Appeals,[41] Echauz v. Court of Appeals,[42] and Valencia v. Court of Appeals.[43] Clearly, the RTC committed legal error when it ordered the premature execution of the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Nonetheless, we recognize that the RTC had the power to order the execution pending appeal of actual or compensatory damages in accordance with the cited authorities.
	GR NO. 163511 2006-06-30	LEE HIONG WEE v. DEE PING WEE GARCIA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same transaction and same essential facts and circumstances, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another,[12] implying that there is between the two cases identity of parties, rights asserted and reliefs sought.[13]
	GR NO. 162814-17 2005-08-25	JOSE F. MANACOP v. EQUITABLE PCIBANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Certiorari lies against an order granting execution pending appeal where the same is not founded upon good reasons. The fact that the losing party had also appealed from the judgment does not bar the certiorari proceedings, as the appeal could not be an adequate remedy from such premature execution. Additionally, there is no forum-shopping where in one petition a party questions the order granting the motion for execution pending appeal and at the same time questions the decision on the merits in a regular appeal before the appellate court. After all, the merits of the main case are not to be determined in a petition questioning execution pending appeal and vice versa.[51]
	GR NO. 164857 2005-04-11	FLEXO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COLUMBUS FOODS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Contrary to the claim of Flexo, the posting of a bond will not justify execution pending appeal. The rule is now settled that the mere filing of a bond by the successful party is not a good reason for ordering execution pending appeal, as "a combination of circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels the grant of immediate execution, the requirement of a bond is imposed merely as an additional factor, no doubt for the protection of the defendant's creditor."[20] Otherwise, execution pending appeal could be obtained through the mere filing of such a bond.[21]
	GR No. 155214 2004-02-13	R & E TRANSPORT v. AVELINA P. LATAG PANGANIBAN, J.
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition.[35] Such act is present when there is an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought in two or more pending cases.[36] It is usually resorted to by a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek and possibly to get a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by an appeal or a special civil action for certiorari.[37]