Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CEFERINO S. CABREZA v. AMPARO ROBLES CABREZA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Rulloda v. COMELEC, et al.[114] involving substitution of candidates, the Court ruled that the purpose of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters. It is a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable mandate of the people. It is well-settled that in case of doubt, political laws must be so construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[115]
	GR No. 197530 2014-07-09	ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN LEONEN, J.
Fifth, the dismissal of the first complaint with respect to AEV was a judgment on the merits. As explained in Cabreza, Jr. v. Cabreza:[97]
	GR No. 197530 2014-07-09	ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES v. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN LEONEN, J.
A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits "when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections"; or when the judgment is rendered "after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point."[98]
	GR No. 187317 2013-04-11	CARLITO C. ENCINAS v. PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN SERENO, C.J.
A judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits "when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections;"or when the judgment is rendered "after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point."[82]
	GR No. 172438 2012-07-04	METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES MENDOZA, J.
To determine whether there is identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, grounded on the same facts and bases, the following tests may be utilized: (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and the second causes of action, also known as the "same evidence" test; or (2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other.[39] Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first case.[40]