Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCEPCION CUENCO VDA. DE MANGUERRA v. RAUL RISOS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171428 2013-11-11	ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, praying that the assailed October 25, 2005 Decision and the February 9, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals[1] be reversed, and that the January 4, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
	GR No. 193753 2012-09-26	LIVING v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Moreover, even on the assumption that DMI was, indeed, an indispensable party, the RTC committed reversible error in dismissing the complaint. Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, as the remedy in such case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable, considering that parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action.[19]
	GR No. 185527 2012-07-18	HARRY L. GO v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Even in criminal proceedings, there is no doubt as to the availability of conditional examination of witnesses both for the benefit of the defense, as well as the prosecution. The Court's ruling in the case of Vda. de Manguerra v. Risos[15] explicitly states that
	GR No. 185527 2012-07-18	HARRY L. GO v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. This is the import of the Court's ruling in Vda. de Manguerra[19] where we further declared that
	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the owner of the property is an indispensable party in the expropriation proceedings, the non-joinder of said party would still not warrant immediate dismissal of the complaint for expropriation. In Vda. De Manguerra v. Risos,[77] the Court applied Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court even in case of non-joinder of an indispensable party, viz: [F]ailure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. In such a case, the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioner's/plaintiff's failure to comply. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 160610 2009-08-14	JUDELIO COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In Vda. de Manguerra v. Risos,[11] where the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals failed to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party, the Court held: It is undisputed that in their petition for certiorari before the CA, respondents failed to implead the People of the Philippines as a party thereto. Because of this, the petition was obviously defective. As provided in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the petitioners (respondents herein) to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to comment on the petition.