Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELPIDIO S. UY v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179169 2010-03-03	LEONIS NAVIGATION CO. v. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER NACHURA, J.
Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those who are parties in interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action.[27] They are those parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence.[28] A party is indispensable if his interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with the other parties' interest.[29]
	GR No. 161237 2009-01-14	PERFECTO MACABABBAD v. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG BRION, J.
Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those who are parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action.[53] They are those parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence.[54] A party is indispensable if his interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with the other parties' interest.[55]
	GR NO. 148132 2008-01-23	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. REGINA M. ASTORGA NACHURA, J.
For the resolution of the Court are three consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. G.R. No. 148132 assails the February 28, 2000 Decision[1] and the May 7, 2001 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 53831. G.R. Nos. 151079 and 151372 question the June 11, 2001 Decision[3] and the December 18, 2001 Resolution[4] in CA-G.R. SP. No. 57065.