This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-12-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| That the contractors were not impleaded as necessary parties was not a fatal infirmity, according to the CA, relying on the ruling of the Court in Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction and Development Corporation.[20] On the other hand, the alleged lack of proof of service was brushed aside on the finding that there is in the records of the case (page 35 of the petition) an affidavit of service executed by Rufino San Antonio indicating compliance with the rule on service. Finally, the CA ruled that the defect in the verification and certification was a mere formal requirement that can be excused in the interest of substantial justice, following the ruling of this Court in Uy v. Landbank of the Philippines.[21] | |||||