Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 156903 2006-11-24	SPS. CARLOS AND TERESITA RUSTIA v. EMERITA RIVERA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Section 4 lays the general rule that all written motions shall be set for hearing by the movant, except the non-litigated motions or those which may be acted upon by the court without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party. These ex parte motions include a motion for extension of time to file pleadings,[3] motion for extension of time to file an answer,[4] and a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal.[5] In Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Bath Construction and Company,[6] we ruled that a notice of time and place of hearing is mandatory for motions for new trial or motion for reconsideration, as in this case. We have reiterated this doctrine in Magno v. Ortiz,[7] Calero v. Yaptichay,[8] Vda. de Azarias v. Maddela,[9] Phil. Advertising Counselors, Inc. v. Revilla,[10] Sacdalan v. Bautista,[11] New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Perucho,[12] Firme v. Reyes, et al.,[13] and others. More recently, in National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v. Court of Appeals,[14] we reaffirmed the rule that the requirement of notice under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 is mandatory and the lack thereof is fatal to a motion for reconsideration.
	GR NO. 158867 2006-08-22	JIMMY BANTING v. SPS. JOSE MAGLAPUZ AND RAYMUNDA BANDIN MAGLAPUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As it were, however, petitioners filed instead a Notice of Appeal on January 20, 2003. Such mode of appeal under Section 2 (a) of Rule 41 was faulty. Recourse to it did not toll the running of the period within which to file a petition for review. It is axiomatic that a fatally defective or erroneous appeal or motion will not toll the running of a period to appeal. A detour from the proper course of an appeal will not earn for the errant party a fresh start.[45]
	GR No. 152317 2004-11-10	VICTORIA MOREÑO-LENTFER v. HANS JURGEN WOLFF QUISUMBING, J.
The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti harks back to the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.[18] It applies where (1) a payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment, and (2) the payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause.[19]
	GR No. 132076 2003-07-22	ROBERTO U. GENOVA v. LEVITA DE CASTRO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner also argues that the payments he has made to respondent must be returned based on the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the Civil Code. There is solutio indebiti where: (1) payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause.[25] The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti is based on the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.[26]