Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MANUEL N. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180321 2013-03-20	EDITHA PADLAN v. ELENITA DINGLASAN PERALTA, J.
What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[16]
	GR No. 168973 2011-08-24	CITY OF DUMAGUETE v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss; for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[33]
	GR No. 181969 2009-10-02	ROMLAGO v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES NACHURA, J.
In Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Manuel M. Domingo,[33] the word construction is defined as referring to all on-site works on buildings or altering structures, from land clearance through completion, including excavation, erection, and assembly and installation of components and equipment.
	GR No. 176709 2009-05-08	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. EDWIN D. SORONGON TINGA, J.
Although the jurisdiction of the CIAC is not limited to the instances enumerated in Section 4 of E. O. No. 1008, Fong's claim is not even construction-related at all. This court has held that: "Construction is defined as referring to all on-site works on buildings or altering structures, from land clearance through completion including excavation, erection and assembly and installation of components and equipment."[14] Thus, petitioner's insistence on the application of the arbitration clause of the Trade Contract to Fong is clearly anchored on an erroneous premise that the latter is seeking to enforce a right under the trade contract. This premise cannot stand since the right to the retention money of Maxco under the Trade Contract is not being impugned herein. It bears mentioning that petitioner readily conceded the existence of the retention money. Fong's demand that the portion of retention money should have been paid to him before the other creditors of Maxco clearly, does not require the CIAC's expertise and technical knowledge of construction.
	GR No. 176709 2009-05-08	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. EDWIN D. SORONGON TINGA, J.
The adjudication of Civil Case necessarily involves the application of pertinent statutes and jurisprudence to matters of assignment and preference of credits. As this Court held in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Domingo,[15] this task more suited for a trial court to carry out after a full-blown trial, than an arbitration body specifically devoted to construction contracts.