Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARMELITA T. PANGANIBAN v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 9120 2013-03-11	AUGUSTO P. BALDADO v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA PERALTA, J.
As regards the filing of the motion to dismiss after filing an Answer, Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation[16] held that the requirement that a motion to dismiss should be filed within the time for filing the answer is not absolute. Even after an answer has been filed, a defendant can still file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction, (2) litis pendentia (3) lack of cause of action, and (4) discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal.[17] In this case, respondent sought the dismissal of the quo warranto case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Even if the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, respondent could still have raised the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the trial court in the appeal of the trial court's decision to the COMELEC; however, no such appeal was filed.
	GR No. 155622 2009-10-26	DOTMATRIX TRADING v. ROMMEL B. LEGASPI UNDER NAME BRION, J.
We also applied the "more appropriate action test" in the 2003 case Panganiban v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.,[20] where the lessee filed a petition for declaratory relief on the issue of renewal of the lease of a gasoline service station, while the lessor filed an unlawful detainer case against the lessee. On the question of which action should be dismissed, we noted that the interpretation of a provision in the lease contract as to when the lease would expire is the key issue that would determine the lessee's right to possess the gasoline service station. The primary issue - the physical possession of the gasoline station - is best settled in the ejectment suit that directly confronted the physical possession issue, and not in any other case such as an action for declaratory relief.[21]
	GR NO. 156542 2007-06-26	CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT v. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[24]
	GR NO. 160479 2005-06-08	SPS. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA AND REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The requisites of litis pendentia are the following: (a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[30] And one element of res judicata is that the judgment or order must be on the merits of the case.[31]