This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is pointed out that under common law,[23] if one corporation sells or otherwise transfers all its assets to another corporation, the latter is not liable for the debts and liabilities of the transferor if it has acted in good faith and has paid adequate consideration for the assets, except: (1) where the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such debts; (2) where the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the corporations; (3) where the purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the selling corporation; and (4) where the transaction is entered into fraudulently in order to escape liability for such debts.[24] | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A Rule 65 petition for prohibition can only be aimed at judicial, quasi-judicial, and ministerial functions.[75] Since the issuance of the LAO Order assailed was not characterized by any of the three functions, as shown supra, then it follows that the GSIS chose the wrong remedy. Moreover, "where it is the Government which is being enjoined from implementing an issuance which enjoys the presumption of validity, such discretion [to enjoin] must be exercised with utmost caution.[76] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court agrees with petitioners' contention that the availability of an administrative remedy via a complaint filed before the NEA precludes respondent from filing a petition for prohibition before the court. It is settled that one of the requisites for a writ of prohibition to issue is that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[20] In order that prohibition will lie, the petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies.[21] Thus, respondent's failure to file a complaint before the NEA prevents him from filing a petition for prohibition before the RTC. | |||||