This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court also takes into account the circumstance that petitioners' previous complaints were dismissed without prejudice. "A dismissal without prejudice does not operate as a judgment on the merits."[45] As contrasted from a dismissal with prejudice which disallows and bars the filing of. a complaint, a dismissal without prejudice "does not bar another action involving the same parties, on the same subject matter and theory."[46] The NLRC Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 16 of Rule V thereof, provides the remedy of filing for a revival or re-opening of a case which was dismissed without prejudice within 10 days from receipt of notice of the order of dismissal and of re-filing the case after the lapse of the 10-day period. Petitioners are thus not barred from re-filing their Complaints. | |||||
|
2015-09-23 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In Hasegawa v. Kitamura,[40] we stated that in the judicial resolution of conflict-of-laws problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. In resolving the conflicts problem, courts should ask the following questions:1. "Under the law, do I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this case? | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While indeed, the general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari which is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling,[14] and that the appropriate recourse is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course,[15] this rule is not absolute. | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Recently in Hasegawa v. Kitamura,[26] the Court outlined three consecutive phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws problems, namely: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Thus, in the instances[27] where the Court held that the local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following requisites had to be proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its decision.[28] | |||||