Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. JIMMY AND PATRI CHAN v. RTC OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE IN DIPOLOG CITY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 116121 2011-07-18	HEIRS OF LATE RUBEN REINOSO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
The Court also takes into account the fact that the case was filed before the Manchester ruling came out. Even if said ruling could be applied retroactively, liberality should be accorded to the petitioners in view of the recency then of the ruling. Leniency because of recency was applied to the cases of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals [17] and Spouses Jimmy and Patri Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga. [18] In the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat (Mactan), [19] it was stated that the "intent of the Court is clear to afford litigants full opportunity to comply with the new rules and to temper enforcement of sanctions in view of the recency of the changes introduced by the new rules."In Mactan, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also failed to pay the correct docket fees on time.
	GR No. 183788 2010-04-05	KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Generally, subsequent compliance with the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping does not excuse a party from failure to comply in the first instance. [31] A certification of the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is the petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. [32] A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. [33]
	GR NO. 168253 2007-03-16	MAYOR NOEL E. ROSAL v. COMELEC CORONA, J.
Repol therefore merely serves as a reminder that, in a petition for certiorari from an interlocutory order, the petitioner bears the burden of showing that the remedy of appeal taken after a judgment or final order (as opposed to an interlocutory one) has been rendered will not afford adequate and expeditious relief,[18] as it is often the better practice for a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order to continue with the case in due course and, in the event of an adverse decision, appeal from it and include the interlocutory order as one of the errors to be corrected by the reviewing body.
	GR NO. 147989 2006-02-20	ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While the Court has exercised leniency in cases where the lapse in observing the rules was committed when the rules have just recently taken effect,[30] the attendant circumstances in this case however do not warrant such leniency.
	GR NO. 165606 2006-02-06	DEUTSCHE BANK MANILA v. SPS. CHUA YOK SEE AND REBECCA SEE CALLEJO, SR., J.
This Court has consistently ruled that in a petition for certiorari from an interlocutory order, the petitioner is burdened to prove that the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[43] A remedy is plain, speedy, and adequate remedy if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the acts of the lower court.[44] Appeal in due course is a speedy and adequate remedy.[45]
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires the pleader to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping to be executed by the plaintiff or principal party is mandatory.[27] A certification of the plaintiff's counsel will not suffice for the reason that it is petitioner, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition.[28] A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.[29] Hence, strictly speaking, the CA was correct in dismissing the petition.