Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. 09-5-2-SC 2013-04-11	IN MATTER OF BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN ELECTIONS OF INTEGRATED BAR OF PHILIPPINES. ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO v. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN MENDOZA, J.
Later, several amendments in the IBP By-Laws were introduced, among which were the provisions relating to the election of its national officers. In Bar Matter No. 287, dated July 9, 1985, the Court approved the recommendation allowing the IBP-President, the EVP and the officers of the House of Delegates to be directly elected by the House of Delegates.[12]
	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
The rule is not absolute. The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court completely available for justice.[19] It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims, overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing of the claims.[20] This Court has ruled:[A]llowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Thus, interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice. Interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the judgment was already submitted for decision before the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. In Lim v. Pacquing (310 Phil. 722 (1995)], the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties.[21]
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-11-27	BON-MAR REALTY v. SPS. NICANOR AND ESTHER DE GUZMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In several cases, intervention was allowed notwithstanding that it was belatedly filed.[4] This is one of those cases. As stated earlier on, the evidence in Civil Case No. 67315 strongly suggests that the DE GUZMANS are attempting to recover anew upon an already executed judgment, which is contrary to law and equity. If this were true, we cannot allow it. BON-MAR should thus be heard in this respect.
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing thereof.[54]
	GR NO. 155785 2007-04-13	SIMPLICIO GALICIA v. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ VDA. DE MINDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is true that the allowance and disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court hearing the case.[7] However, jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein the Court ruled that a motion to intervene may be entertained or allowed even if filed after judgment was rendered by the trial court, especially in cases where the intervenors are indispensable parties.[8] In Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, this Court held:The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing thereof. Indeed, in exceptional cases, the Court has allowed intervention notwithstanding the rendition of judgment by the trial court.[9] Since it is not disputed that herein respondents are compulsory heirs of Ines who stand to be affected by the judgment of the trial court, the latter should have granted their Motion to Intervene and should have admitted their Answer-in-Intervention.
	GR NO. 145874 2005-09-30	SPS. SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA AND AGUSTIN LADANGA v. BERNARDO ASENETA CORONA, J.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Let the decision stand and disturb not what is already settled. The doctrine of stare decisis is a salutary and necessary rule. When a court lays down a principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to such principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts sued upon are substantially the same.[21] Once a case is decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided the same way.[22] It proceeds from the principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[23]
	GR No. 148223 2004-11-25	FERNANDO GABATIN v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is beyond cavil, therefore, that since this Court had already ruled on the prospective application of the Land Bank v. De Leon decision, said issue must be laid to rest and must no longer be disturbed in this decision. Stare decisis et non quieta movere.[25] Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. It is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, absent any countervailing considerations.[26] An in-depth study of the case at bar clearly shows that it does not fall under the exception of the stare decisis rule.