This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| For a full-blown trial to be dispensed with, the party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact, or that the issue posed is patently insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue. Genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived.[37] | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A compromise agreement is binding only between its privies and could not affect the rights of third persons who were not parties to the agreement. One such third party is the lawyer who should not be totally deprived of his compensation because of the compromise subscribed by the client. Otherwise, the terms of the compromise agreement will be set aside, and the client shall be bound to pay the fees agreed upon with his lawyer. If the adverse party settled the suit in bad faith, he will be made solidarily liable with the client for the payment of such fees. The following discussions in Gubat v. National Power Corporation[34] elaborate on this matter, viz:As the validity of a compromise agreement cannot be prejudiced, so should not be the payment of a lawyer's adequate and reasonable compensation for his services should the suit end by reason of the settlement. The terms of the compromise subscribed to by the client should not be such that will amount to an entire deprivation of his lawyer's fees, especially when the contract is on a contingent fee basis. In this sense, the compromise settlement cannot bind the lawyer as a third party. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice or imposition of fraud on the part of his client as the client is against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the court is not only to ensure that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also to see to it that a lawyer is paid his just fees. | |||||
|
2013-09-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| A client has an undoubted right to settle her litigation without the intervention of the attorney, for the former is generally conceded to have exclusive control over the subject matter of the litigation and may at any time, if acting in good faith, settle and adjust the cause of action out of court before judgment, even without the attorney's intervention.[35] It is important for the client to show, however, that the compromise agreement does not adversely affect third persons who are not parties to the agreement.[36] | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that "it may be held liable ONLY IF it is proven by preponderance of evidence that [it] indeed acted in bad faith in dealing with the [subject] property."16 Indeed, bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary.[17] Bad faith has to be established by the claimant with clear and convincing evidence, and this necessitates an examination of the evidence of all the parties.[18] This is best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays.[25] Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the parties.[26] | |||||