Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LINCOLN L. YAO v. NORMA C. PERELLO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 178923 2008-11-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To allow intervention, it must be shown that (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified, and (b) consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both requirements must concur, as the first is not more important than the second.[32]
	GR No. 177667 2008-09-17	CLEODIA U. FRANCISCO v. SPS. JORGE C. GONZALES AND PURIFICACION W. GONZALES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds that it was grave error for the RTC to proceed with the execution, levy and sale of the subject property. The power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone, [15] in the present case to those belonging to Michele and Matrai. One man's goods shall not be sold for another man's debts.[16]
	GR NO. 161739 2006-05-04	ALFREDO BOKINGO v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Preliminarily, the Court finds no reversible error in the dismissal by the CA of petitioner Bokingo's petition for certiorari filed therewith. As correctly held by the CA, the mere fact that he failed to move for the reconsideration of the court a quo's order denying his motion to dismiss was sufficient cause for the outright dismissal of the said petition. Certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent court to allow it an opportunity to correct its errors, if any.[10] Petitioner Bokingo did not proffer any compelling reason to warrant deviation by the CA from this salutary rule. As further observed by the CA, petitioner Bokingo failed to even allege grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court a quo in rendering the order denying his motion to dismiss.
	GR NO. 161110 2006-03-30	PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES PANGANIBAN, CJ
As a general rule, certiorari will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal to allow it an opportunity to correct the imputed errors. [10] To this rule, the following are the recognized exceptions:"(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;