Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DRA. RAFAEL V. TRIAS v. GREGORIO ARANETA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 132502 & 132503 2007-09-19	BENIGNO M. PUNO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
On May 21, 1990, Mercedes filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (with Prayer for Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction)[39] before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. No. 20786, praying that Questioned Orders 1-3 be annulled and their enforcement enjoined. Puno and some employees of the Market-his herein co-petitioners Jose Cabacaba, Nora Gonzales, Ricardo Cortez, Elizardo Puno, Larsen Tabbar, and Antonio Mirabueno also filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (with Prayer for Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction) before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. No. 22683, assailing Questioned Order No. 4.[40] The Court of Appeals, which consolidated the petitions,[41] dismissed them by the now assailed Decision[42] of January 17, 1992 in this wise:At the core of the present controversy is the issue of possession and ownership of the Greenleaf Market.
	GR No. 132502 & 132503 2007-09-19	BENIGNO M. PUNO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
By Decision of October 23, 1989, this Court, in G.R. No. L-73162 (PVB's petition assailing the IAC's dismissal of its petition questioning the sales at public auction of its properties), upon Emiliana's confession of judgment, nullified the auction sales of PVB's properties held on July 8 and 9, 1985 on the ground that the placing of PVB under receivership rendered the RTC Manila, Branch 13 judgment in Civil Case No. 84-23585 unenforceable. This Court thus ordered Emiliana to file her judgment claim in the liquidation proceedings.[17] Puno, who, as earlier stated, had been replaced as Emiliana's counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, without Emiliana's conformity,[18] of this Court's said Decision of October 23, 1989. His motion was denied by this Court.[19]
	GR No. 132502 & 132503 2007-09-19	BENIGNO M. PUNO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Mercedes did not remit the collected rentals to the liquidation court, however, prompting PVB to file a motion to cite her and Puno for contempt of court.[32]
	GR No. 132502 & 132503 2007-09-19	BENIGNO M. PUNO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
On May 21, 1990, Mercedes filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (with Prayer for Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction)[39] before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. No. 20786, praying that Questioned Orders 1-3 be annulled and their enforcement enjoined. Puno and some employees of the Market-his herein co-petitioners Jose Cabacaba, Nora Gonzales, Ricardo Cortez, Elizardo Puno, Larsen Tabbar, and Antonio Mirabueno also filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (with Prayer for Restraining Order and Writ of Injunction) before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA G.R. No. 22683, assailing Questioned Order No. 4.[40] The Court of Appeals, which consolidated the petitions,[41] dismissed them by the now assailed Decision[42] of January 17, 1992 in this wise:At the core of the present controversy is the issue of possession and ownership of the Greenleaf Market.
	GR No. 132502 & 132503 2007-09-19	BENIGNO M. PUNO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The judgment under Civil Case No. 84-23585 was solely in favor of [Emiliana] Doblon and the execution sale of the Greenleaf Market sought to partly execute the said judgment was likewise made solely between Doblon and the PVB. x x x Petitioner [Puno] never had a participation in any of the foregoing and therefore possesses no rights over the subject property enforceable by him against PVB before the liquidation proceedings. x x x [T]he same is true with petitioner [Mercedes], who, incidentally, is raising her claim over the subject market only for the first time in her petition. If at all, their recourse is with [Emiliana] and not with PVB.[60] (Emphasis supplied).