Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. AMALIA F. DY IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC MANDALUYONG CITY

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 180440 2012-12-05	DR. GENEVIEVE L. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS PEREZ, J.
As petitioner's cause of action is based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon her to prove the presence of the following requisites before respondents PHI and DTPCI can be held liable, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.[78] Further, since petitioner's case is for quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be clearly established as it is the basis of her action.[79] The burden of proof is upon petitioner. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that "burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law." It is then up for the plaintiff to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence.[80]
	GR No. 156797 2010-07-06	IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 BERSAMIN, J.
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title."[16] The RTC should have also noted soon enough that his resort to judicial reconstitution was not because his earlier resort to administrative reconstitution had been denied (in fact, the LRA had resolved in his favor),[17] but because the intervening loss to fire of the only permissible basis for administrative reconstitution of the TCTs mandated his resort to the RTC.[18] Indeed, he came to court as the law directed him to do, unlike the litigant involved in the undesirable practice of forum shopping who would go from one court to another to secure a favorable relief after being denied the desired relief by another court.[19]
	GR No. 174356 2010-01-20	EVELINA G. CHAVEZ v. CA ABAD, J.
One. By forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions in separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause, trusting that one or the other tribunal would favorably dispose of the matter.[4] The elements of forum shopping are the same as in litis pendentia where the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[5]
	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
SO ORDERED.[17]
	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
As the excerpts of the Court's decision in G.R. No. 156887 show,[114] the defense of prescription of the claim and the other defenses of PNCC were passed upon, and the Court upheld the CA's affirmance of the RTC's denial of PNCC's motion to dismiss based on such defenses. The ruling in G.R. No. 156887 bars the re-litigation in these consolidated cases of the same issues, particularly a bar by prescription, because of the application of the doctrine of law of the case.
	GR No. 167674 2008-06-17	PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY QUISUMBING, J.
Forum shopping is defined as an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[22]
	GR NO. 147970 2006-03-31	PCL INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
More recently, in Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Dy,[8] the Court ruled that the following allegations in an affidavit to support the application for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment is insufficient, to wit:Radstock grounded its application for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment on Section 1 (d) and (e) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which provides: