Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DONATO SUMAWAY v. URBAN BANK

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 178933 2009-09-16	RICARDO S. SILVERIO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
On May 4, 2007, the CA issued the assailed Resolution granting the prayer for the issuance of a TRO. In issuing the TRO, the CA ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed within the reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court applying the "fresh rule period" enunciated by this Court in Neypes v. Court of Appeals[15] as reiterated in Sumaway v. Union Bank.[16]
	GR No. 156302 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Hence, the fresh period rule laid down in Neypes was applied by the Court in resolving the subsequent cases of Sumaway v. Urban Bank, Inc.,[44] Elbiña v. Ceniza,[45] First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[46] even though the antecedent facts giving rise to said cases transpired before the promulgation of Neypes.
	GR No. 167403 2008-08-06	MAKATI INSURANCE CO. v. WILFREDO D. REYES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Taking our bearings from Neypes, in Sumaway v. Urban Bank, Inc.,[32] we set aside the denial of a notice of appeal which was purportedly filed five days late. With the fresh period rule, the 15-day period within which to file the notice of appeal was counted from notice of the denial of the therein petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
	GR NO. 159695 2006-09-15	REPUBLIC v. RAMON G. ASUNCION QUISUMBING, J.
Since the Solicitor General filed his notice of appeal on March 20, 2002 or seven days after he received the denial of the motion, the notice of appeal was filed within the "fresh period" of 15 days to file the notice of appeal.[33] Thus, the notice of appeal deserves to be given due course.