Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SHIMIZU PHILIPPINES CONTRACTORS v. MRS. LETICIA B. MAGSALIN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 191874 2015-09-02	ROASTERS PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE GAVIOLA PEREZ, J.
The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute.[16]
	GR No. 202967 2015-08-05	ALICIA Y. LAUREL v. FERDINAND M. VARDELEON DEL CASTILLO, J.
This Court has said that "[t]he fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute."[27]
	GR No. 182571 2013-09-02	LIGAYA ESGUERRA v. HOLCIM PHILIPPINES REYES, J.
From the foregoing, the Court finds the same substantially compliant with the requirements of Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. All of the pertinent documents necessary for the Court to appreciate the circumstances surrounding the case and to resolve the issues at hand were attached. Furthermore, the parties' subsequent comment and reply have sufficiently provided the Court the needed information regarding the proceedings and acts of the trial court during the execution of the final and executory decision of this Court in G.R. No. 120004 which are the matters being questioned. In Shimizu Philippines Contractors, Inc. v. Magsalin,[49] the Court proceeded to give due course to the petition when it found the same and its attachments sufficient for the Court to access and resolve the controversy.[50]