Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GENEROSO A. JUABAN and FRANCIS M. ZOSA v. RENE ESPINA and CEBU DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTIES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187917 2011-01-19	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA NACHURA, J.
In Juaban v. Espina[33] and "G" Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU),[34] we held that, in some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice.
	GR No. 168583 2010-07-26	ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTA×O v. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Atty. Montaño accuses Atty. Verceles of violating the rules on forum shopping. We note however that this issue was only raised for the first time in Atty. Montaño's motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the CA, hence, the same deserves no merit. It is settled that new issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or on motion for reconsideration.[35] While this allegation is related to the ground of forum shopping alleged by Atty. Montaño at the early stage of the proceedings, the latter, as a ground for the dismissal of actions, is separate and distinct from the failure to submit a proper certificate against forum shopping.[36]
	GR No. 160236 2009-10-16	'G' HOLDINGS v. NATIONAL MINES NACHURA, J.
In this light, all the more does it become imperative to take judicial notice of the two cases aforesaid, as they provide the necessary perspective to determine whether GHI is such a party with a valid ownership claim over the properties subject of the writ of execution. In Juaban v. Espina,[40] we held that "in some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice." The two cases that we have taken judicial notice of are of such character, and our review of the instant case cannot stray from the findings and conclusions therein.
	GR No. 178647 2009-02-13	GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. NACHURA, J.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on a given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to one another, the issue in that query is factual.[13]
	GR No. 180986 2008-12-10	NORBERTO ALTRES v. CAMILO G. EMPLEO CARPIO MORALES, J.
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;[31] otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.[32]