Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EQUITABLE PCI BANKING CORPORATION v. RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 196171 2012-12-10	RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Meanwhile, on January 8, 2008, the Makati City RTC, Branch 148 issued an order in SP Proc. Case No. M-6046 confirming the First Partial Award and denying Respondents' separate motions to vacate and to suspend and inhibit Barker and Kaplan. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Respondents directly filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 182248 and entitled Equitable PCI Banking Corporation v. RCBC Capital Corporation.[32] In our Decision dated December 18, 2008, we denied the petition and affirmed the RTC's ruling confirming the First Partial Award.
	GR No. 175155 2012-10-22	JOHN C. ARROYO v. ROSAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MENDOZA, J.
At any rate, when the RTC rendered its decision adverse to petitioners, the latter were able to seek reconsideration and avail of their right to appeal to the CA. The CA then required the parties to file their respective pleadings before it rendered a decision denying petitioners' appeal. They even moved for the reconsideration of the denial of their appeal. Having been able to appeal and move for a reconsideration of the assailed rulings, petitioners cannot claim a denial of due process.[20]
	GR No. 175991 2011-08-31	JOSE R. CATACUTAN v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard."[24] "Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy."[25] "Where an opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process."[26]