Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTURO M. ROMERO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 152101 2009-09-08	EMCOR INCORPORATED v. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES PERALTA, J.
Respondent filed the petition on March 25, 1999,[12] and not on March 29, 1999 as erroneously stated by the CA; thus, the petition was indeed filed out of time. However, on September 1, 2000, A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC took effect, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby the 60-day period within which to file the petition shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, if one is filed. We ruled that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a curative statute, should be applied retroactively.[13]
	GR No. 184915 2009-06-30	NILO T. PATES v. COMELEC BRION, J.
(4) Romero v. Court of Appeals[5] which emphasized that A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC is a curative statute that may be applied retroactively.
	GR NO. 129704 2005-09-30	ULPIANO BALO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari[9] before the Court of Appeals. After the filing of Comment and other pleadings, the case was deemed submitted for decision. In a resolution dated 16 April 1997, the Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition and accordingly dismissed the same. The Court of Appeals justified the dismissal in the following manner:It is an established rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is basically interlocutory in character and cannot be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari. When a motion to dismiss is denied, the proper procedure is to proceed with the trial and if the decision be adverse to the movant, the remedy is to take an appeal from said decision, assigning as one of the errors therefore the denial of the motion to dismiss.[10]