Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LETICIA DIONA v. SONNY A. BALANGUE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 211588 2015-09-09	WORLD'S BEST GAS v. HENRY VITAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
With the RTC's jurisdiction established over the above-mentioned causes of action, Vital's claim of P500,000.00 due from WBGI's acquisition of his shares of stocks should therefore be offset against the P923,843.59 in arrearages payable to WBGI by ERJ Enterprises owned by respondents, as prayed for by him. Hence, no amount can be adjudicated in Vital's favor, since it is the respondents who, after due computation, would be left liable to WBGI in the net amount of P423,843.59. This notwithstanding, WBGI cannot recover this latter amount in this case since it never interposed a permissive counterclaim therefor in its answer.[32] It is well-settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party.[33] WBGI may, however, opt to file a separate collection suit, including those related thereto (e.g., moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees), to recover such sum.
	GR No. 206957 2015-06-17	CHERITH A. BUCAL v. MANNY P. BUCAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well-settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party to a case.[46] The rationale for the rule was explained in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston,[47] viz.:Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.[48]
	GR No. 199990 2015-02-04	SPS. ROLANDO v. SPS. ROGELIO MENDOZA, J.
Second, Spouses Rabaja's appeal with the RTC never sought relief in returning the garnished amount.[50] Such issue simply emerged in the RTC decision. This is highly improper because the court's grant of relief is limited only to what has been prayed for in the complaint or related thereto, supported by evidence, and covered by the party's cause of action.[51]
	GR No. 192371 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL OÑATE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.[87]