Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 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. 158917 2004-03-01	EVELYN T. PARADERO v. ALBERT B. ABRAGAN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
VIII. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES IN CASE THIS HONORABLE COURT WILL RULE IN HER FAVOR.[16] The Court is aware of the doctrine that the availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where the appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. Indeed, it is the inadequacy not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari. This has been the consistent ruling of the Court in Jaca v. Davao Lumber Company,[17] reiterated in the subsequent cases of Valencia v. Court of Appeals,[18] Echauz v. Court of Appeals,[19] and International School v. Court of Appeals.[20]
	GR No. 132592 2002-01-23	AIDA P. BAÑEZ v. GABRIEL B. BAÑEZ QUISUMBING, J.
As held in Echaus vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 381, 386 (1991), execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. Otherwise, instead of being an instrument of solicitude and justice, the writ may well become a tool of oppression and inequity.[11]