This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| [23] Reynoso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 116124-25, 22 November 2000, 345 SCRA 335. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows: | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In Reynoso v. Court of Appeals,[27] CCC/GCC/Penta assailed the validity of the execution proceedings in the RTC QC on various grounds, mainly the fact that the latter had allowed the levy and sale of the Valle Verde property. Allegedly, this property was not owned by judgment debtor CCC-QC, but by CCC/GCC/Penta itself an entity separate and distinct from the former. We held in the said case, though, that since the circumstances warranted piercing the corporate veil, judgment in favor of Reynoso may be executed against GCC (now Penta), an alter ego of CCC-QC. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On December 27, 2000, the spouses Zarate filed a motion for the reconsideration of the trial court's Order, which they claimed to have received on December 21, 2000. They alleged that there had been "a mix-up in the schedule of their counsel" and that the trial court's Order setting the case for trial on November 28, 2000 was received by their counsel in the afternoon of even date.[23] The spouses further alleged that their counsel was also attending trial in Criminal Case No. 116124-H before Branch 163 of the RTC of Pasig. | |||||