This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A prerequisite to the exercise of such right is that some substantive basis for a third-party claim be found to exist, whether the basis be one of indemnity, subrogation, contribution or other substantive right. The bringing of a third-party defendant is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant, although the third-party defendant's liability arises out of another transaction. The defendant may implead another as third-party defendant: (a) on an allegation of liability of the latter to the defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief; (b) on the ground of direct liability of the third-party defendant to the plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the third-party defendant to both the plaintiff and the defendant.[72] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The purpose of the rule is to permit a defendant to assert an independent claim against a third party which he, otherwise, would assert in another action, thus preventing multiplicity of suits.[28] Had it not been for the rule, the claim could have been filed separately from the original complaint.[29] | |||||
|
2007-03-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The purpose of the foregoing provision is to allow a defendant to assert an independent claim against a third party, which would otherwise be asserted in another action, thus preventing multiplicity of suits. A prerequisite to the exercise of such right is the existence of substantive basis for a third-party claim, such as indemnity, subrogation, contribution or other substantive right. The bringing of a third-party defendant is proper if the latter would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant, although the third-party defendant's liability arises out of another transaction.[15] | |||||