This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-04-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In reply to the accusations leveled against him by the De Leon Group, respondent Peña denied having used abrasive, insulting and intemperate language in his pleadings; and argued that his statements therein were privileged and could not be used as a basis for liability.[17] He also accused Urban Bank and its directors and officers of violating the rule against forum shopping by dividing themselves into separate groups and filing three Petitions (G.R. Nos. 145817, 145818 and 145822) against the same Decision of the Court of Appeals with the same causes of actions and prayers for relief.[18] | |||||
|
2012-04-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The counter-charge of forum shopping has been made by respondent Peña against petitioners and their respective counsel in his defense.[96] However, this is already beyond the scope of the subject matter of this administrative case. It will be recalled that he assailed the fact that Urban Bank, the De Leon Group, and the other group of bank officers filed three separate Petitions (G.R. Nos. 145817, 145818 and 145822, respectively) before the Court. They all questioned therein the rulings of the appellate court affirming the grant of execution pending appeal. | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| (5) GRANTING unto the petitioners such other relief or remedy that serves the cause of law, justice and equity.[6] In his answer to the petition, Gregorio Lumapas averred that (1) he was the sole heir of Guillermo Lumapas; (2) the trial court had declared him as owner of the property in Civil Case No. 90-20,015 (2631) and Civil Case 90-20,025 (2993), and that the said decision was upheld by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 and by this Court in G.R. No. 117338; and, (3) the petitioners' action was barred by res judicata and prescription. | |||||