Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION v. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167284 2011-07-06	ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
The appellate court, in its assailed June 1, 2004 Resolution, [27] refused to act on petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration because of the then pending appeal of CA-G.R. CV No. 51242 in the Supreme Court. To recall, the Resolution disposes as follows: ACCORDINGLY, on account of the pendency before the Supreme Court of a petition for review filed by defendant-appellant Agustin Ladanga from the decision of the Court, the Court will again refrain from acting on the aforesaid Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
	GR No. 167284 2011-07-06	ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
On the other hand, respondent spouses Ladanga filed their Comment dated June 28, 2005. [36] They assert that the CA was correct in declining to act on petitioners' motions because the CA already lost jurisdiction over CA-G.R. CV No. 51242 after the spouses Ladangas' appeal to this Court was given due course. As to the filing of a Memorandum, the same was waived [37] by the respondent spouses' lawyer, Atty. Gregorio T. Fabros, who manifested that the respondent spouses had already died.
	GR No. 181842 2010-02-05	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although specified are left for determination of the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.[14] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the shortage of payment of the docketing fee, the same cannot be used as a ground for dismissing the petition. In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[44] the Court held that the strict regulations set in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[45] that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees does not apply where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court. The liberal doctrine in Sun Insurance has been repeatedly reiterated in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[46] Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Banque Nationale de Paris[47] and Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto,[48] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. Since the deficiency in payment was not at all intentional, as there was a willingness to comply with the rules when Spouses Gutierrez remitted the deficiency by postal money order in their Motion for Reconsideration, the Sun Insurance doctrine applies.
	GR NO. 169108 2006-04-18	INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. ROSE MARIE ALONZO LEGASTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Banque Nationale de Paris,[16] a case in which the docket fees paid by the plaintiff were also insufficient, we held that:With respect to petitioner's argument that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case in light of the insufficient docket fees, the same does not lie.