Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 190080 2014-06-11	GOLDEN VALLEY EXPLORATION v. PINKIAN MINING COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
A similar agreement in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA[41] allowing the ipso facto reversion of the donated property upon non- compliance with the conditions was likewise upheld, with the Court reiterating De Luna and declaring in unmistakable terms that:[42]
	GR No. 187693 2010-07-13	INTERTRANZ CONTAINER LINES v. MA. TERESA I. BAUTISTA BRION, J.
We now determine, given our ruling on the bond issue, at what level the dismissal issue should be resolved considering the length of time that the case has been pending. The case commenced on September 10, 2004, when Bautista filed the complaint for illegal dismissal. The case is more than five (5) years old already and needs to be resolved as expeditiously as possible. On this vital point, the Court's opinion in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals[34] is relevant -
	GR No. 167401 2010-07-05	BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BRION, J.
But as the CA did, we similarly recognize that undue hardship, to the point of injustice, would result if a remand would be ordered under a situation where we are in the position to resolve the case based on the records before us. As we said in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals:[57]
	GR No. 148433 2008-09-30	ZAMBOANGA BARTER TRADERS KILUSANG BAYAN v. JULIUS RHETT J. PLAGATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's statement that neither party to the donation has expressly rescinded the contract is flawed. As above ruled, the deed of donation contains a stipulation that allows automatic reversion. Such stipulation, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, is valid and binding on the parties to the donation. As held in Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (Now P.D. Monfort North) Municipality of Dumangas,[69] citing Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals[70]:The rationale for the foregoing is that in contracts providing for automatic revocation, judicial intervention is necessary not for purposes of obtaining a judicial declaration rescinding a contract already deemed rescinded by virtue of an agreement providing for rescission even without judicial intervention, but in order to determine whether or not the rescission was proper.
	GR No. 138381 2004-11-10	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court likewise held that the remand of a case is not necessary where the court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. The Court will decide actions on the merits in order to expedite the settlement of a controversy and if the ends of justice would not be subserved by a remand of the case.