Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TAM WING TAK v. MAKASIAR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 152496 2009-07-30	SPS. GERMAN ANUNCIACION AND ANA FERMA ANUNCIACION AND GAVINO G. CONEJOS v. PERPETUA M. BOCANEGRA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This is a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Decision,[1] dated November 19, 2001, and the Resolution,[2] dated March 31, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 65516. The CA decision affirmed the Orders dated February 19, 2001[3] and May 16, 2001[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40 in Civil Case No. 00-98813 which dismissed the complaint[5] for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of TCT No. 122452 of petitioner spouses German Anunciacion and Ana Ferma Anunciacion and their co-petitioner, Gavino G. Conejos.
	GR No. 147044 2007-08-24	SPS. NORBERTO ABAGA AND CALIXTA ABAGA v. SPS. ELISEO PANES AND ROGELIA PANES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
From the foregoing Rule, there are two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue: (1) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. The "duty" mentioned in the first situation is a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, requiring the exercise of judgment.[3] The "right" mentioned in the second situation must be a well-defined, clear and certain, one that has been established by law.[4] In short, for mandamus to lie,[5] the duty sought to be compelled to be performed must be a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, and the petitioner must show that he has a well-defined, clear and certain right. It thus behooves this Court to determine whether these requirements have been satisfied.
	GR NO. 166924 2006-08-17	GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHILIPPINES v. KHALID MEHMOOD MALIK GARCIA, J.
By the nature of his office, the investigating prosecutor is under no compulsion to file criminal information where no clear legal justification has been shown and where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of evidence to support the averments.[12] Prosecuting officers have the duty not to prosecute when, after investigation or reinvestigation, they are convinced that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. This is as it should be. For, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with discretion in the discharge of this function. Hence, the question of whether or not to dismiss a complaint is within the purview of the functions of the prosecutor and, ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice.[13]
	GR No. 150793 2004-11-19	FRANCIS CHUA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Under Section 36[13] of the Corporation Code, read in relation to Section 23,[14] where a corporation is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of directors or trustees.[15] An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holds stocks in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued, or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as a nominal party, with the corporation as the real party in interest.[16]
	GR No. 154920 2003-08-15	RODNEY HEGERTY v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Recouping everything that has been maintained and asserted by the parties, there is really reason to believe that the complainant had in fact made some investments with the late DON JUDEVINE who acknowledged receipts thereof and bound himself thereby alone. There is, however, an utter and absolute absence of a showing that the respondent partook of the said investments nor had any business dealing with either the late DON JUDEVINE or the complainant. Complainant also tried in vain to show some form of a partnership between the respondent and the two deceased individuals but the former failed to adduce any tangible evidence to support the same except his general declarations which remain bare as they were. [9] A public prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a criminal information where no clear legal justification has been shown, and no sufficient evidence of guilt nor prima facie case has been presented by the petitioner.[10]