Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRYCE CORPORATION v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 189509 2015-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. G & P BUILDERS LEONEN, J.
[It] is one of many statutorily provided remedies for businesses that experience a downturn. Rather than leave the various creditors unprotected, legislation now provides for an orderly procedure of equitably and fairly addressing their concerns. Corporate rehabilitation allows a court-supervised process to rejuvenate a corporation.[80]
	GR Nos. 173148 2015-04-06	ELSA DEGAYO v. MAGBANUA BRION, J.
Likewise, there exists a community of interest between Degayo and her tenants, who were respondents in Civil Case No. 16047. One test to determine substantial identity of interest would be to see whether the success or failure of one party materially affects the other.[32] In the present case, Degayo is suing for the ownership of the disputed land. Degayo's rights over the disputed land is predicated on the same defenses that his alleged tenants interposed in Civil Case No. 16047, that is, their perceived rights which emanated from the disputed accretion to Lot No. 861. The interests of Degavo and the tenants in relation to the two cases are inextricably intertwined in that both their claims emanate from a singular fundamental allegation of accretion.
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For clarity, below is the complete paragraph in Casido[99] and Patriarca[100] where J. Leonen lifted the portion (highlighted in bold) that he used to contradict the Monsanto inclusion:The theory of the respondents, supported by the dissenting opinion, is predicated on a wrong contention of the nature or character of an amnesty. Amnesty must be distinguished from pardon.
	GR No. 193108 2014-12-10	MARILYN VICTORIO-AQUINO v. PACIFIC PLANS PERALTA, J.
as well as in Pryce Corporation v. China Banking Corporation,[60] to wit:In any case, the Interim Rules or the rules in effect at the time the petition for corporate rehabilitation was filed in 2004 adopts the cram-down principle which "consists of two things: (i) approval despite opposition and (ii) binding effect of the approved plan x x x."
	GR No. 183589 2014-06-25	CHARLIE LIM v. SPS. DANILO LIGON AND GENEROSA VITUG-LIGON VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, the concept of conclusiveness of judgment finds application "when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction." This principle only needs identity of parties and issues to apply.[15]