This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Finally, contrary to petitioners" position, the appellate court's decision onl nullified the suspension of proceedings against Limson and Arollado.[32] The suspension with respect to JAPRL remains, in line with Philippine Blooming MMs v. Court of Appeals.[33] | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Acuña spouses shall also pay attorney's fees to Cecilleville equivalent to 5% of the total award.[11] | |||||
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Citing Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[24] petitioner submits that, as surety, it is separately liable for the satisfaction of the judgment award rendered against the respondent in the labor case. Petitioner lays the blame on the respondent for its failure to avert the execution of the NLRC Decision. | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The Makati RTC may proceed to hear Civil Case No. 03-991 only against Arollado if there is no ground to go after JAPRL and RFC (as will later be discussed). A creditor can demand payment from the surety solidarily liable with the corporation seeking rehabilitation.[43] | |||||
|
2004-06-21 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Being solidary, the claims against them can be pursued separately from and independently of the rehabilitation case, as held in Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals[26] and reiterated in Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27] where we said that property of the surety cannot be taken into custody by the rehabilitation receiver (SEC) and said surety can be sued separately to enforce his liability as surety for the debts or obligations of the debtor. The debts or obligations for which a surety may be liable include future debts, an amount which may not be known at the time the surety is given. | |||||