Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 184536 2013-08-14	MASAYUKI HASEGAWA v. LEILA F. GIRON PEREZ, J.
It must be mentioned, though, that in order to arrive at probable cause, the elements of the crime charged should be present.[21]
	GR No. 192565 2012-02-28	UNION BANK OF THE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The petitioners pray that we reverse the RTC-Makati City decision and quash the Information for perjury against Tomas. The petitioners contend that the Ilusorio ruling is more applicable to the present facts than our ruling in Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim.[11] They argued that the facts in Ilusorio showed that the filing of the petitions in court containing the false statements was the essential ingredient that consummated the perjury. In Sy Tiong, the perjurious statements were made in a General Information Sheet (GIS) that was submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
	GR No. 187872 2011-04-11	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
Neither are we inclined to hospitably entertain respondents' harping over the supposed fact that Quiambao's authority to represent STRADEC - as litigated in the cases pending before the courts of Pasig City and Urdaneta City, involving the question of ownership of the controlling shares of stock of STRADEC as well as the legitimacy of the Board of Directors headed by Quiambao - pose a prejudicial question to the resolution of the dispute before Branch 2 of the Batangas City RTC. A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.[27] It is said to come into play when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former case an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the latter case may proceed since the resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. Aimed at avoiding two conflicting decisions,[28] a prejudicial question requires the concurrence of two essential requisites, to wit: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and, (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.[29] From the foregoing disquisition, it is evident that a prejudicial question cannot be appreciated where, as in the case at bench, the subject actions are all civil in nature.[30]
	GR No. 168139 2009-01-20	FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN v. SPS. MARIANO AND PRESENTACION DELOS SANTOS PUNO, C.J.
In the case at bar, petitioner seeks to apply the principle of res judicata in its concept of "bar by prior judgment" by pointing out that the final decision rendered in the first case for ejectment, Civil Case No. 167142-CV, constitutes a bar to the litigation of the second ejectment suit, the subject of the instant petition.[21]