Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA AND AGUSTIN LADANGA v. BERNARDO ASENETA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 167284 2011-07-06	ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
On November 24, 2000, respondent spouses Ladanga appealed [21] the CA Decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 145874). This Court affirmed the CA Decision over the Diliman property in its September 30, 2005 Decision, [22] which attained finality on November 11, 2005. [23]
	GR No. 167284 2011-07-06	ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANINANG v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
On November 24, 2000, respondent spouses Ladanga appealed [21] the CA Decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 145874). This Court affirmed the CA Decision over the Diliman property in its September 30, 2005 Decision, [22] which attained finality on November 11, 2005. [23]
	GR NO. 149237 2006-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. DYNE-SEM ELECTRONICS CORPORATION CORONA, J.
The question of whether one corporation is merely an alter ego of another is purely one of fact. So is the question of whether a corporation is a paper company, a sham or subterfuge or whether petitioner adduced the requisite quantum of evidence warranting the piercing of the veil of respondent's corporate entity. This Court is not a trier of facts. Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are final and conclusive. The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (a) the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (b) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (c) there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) the judgment is based on a misapplication of facts; (e) the findings of fact of the trial court and the appellate court are contradicted by the evidence on record and (f) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[13]
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting laws shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.[10] Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Let the decision stand and disturb not what is already settled. The doctrine of stare decisis is a salutary and necessary rule. When the Court lays down a principle of law applicable to a certain set of facts, it must adhere to such principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts in issue are substantially the same.[11] Else, the ideal of a stable jurisprudential system can never be achieved.