Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMANA R. CEREZO v. DAVID TUAZON

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 177729 2011-09-28	PHILIPPINE EXPORT v. AMALGAMATED MANAGEMENT BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, the deed of undertaking specifically stated that the grant of the extension of the guaranty period did not extinguish or diminish the obligation of Cuevas and Saddul under the guaranty.[22] Hence, whether or not the guaranty period was extended, and whether or not they were notified of the extension, Cuevas and Saddul remained liable under the guaranty. The stipulation, which was not illegal or immoral, necessarily bound Cuevas and Saddul. It is worth noting, too, that a solidary obligation existed among AMDC, Cuevas and Saddul because they had assented to be jointly and severally liable to the petitioner for whatever damages or liabilities that it might incur by virtue of the guaranty.[23] In a solidary obligation, each debtor was liable for the entire obligation.[24] The petitioner could compel any of the solidary obligors to perform the entire obligation.
	GR No. 172200 2010-07-06	HEIRS OF REDENTOR COMPLETO v. SGT. AMANDO C. ALBAYDA NACHURA, J.
The trial court's finding that Completo failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid collision with Albayda at the intersection of 11th and 8th Streets of VAB gives rise to liability on the part of Completo, as driver, and his employer Abiad. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.[47] The civil liability of the employer for the negligent acts of his employee is also primary and direct, owing to his own negligence in selecting and supervising his employee.[48] The civil liability of the employer attaches even if the employer is not inside the vehicle at the time of the collision.[49]
	GR No. 170427 2009-01-30	ROBERTO R. DAVID v. JUDGE CARMELITA S. GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA
Moreover, a petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default, or even if the trial court properly declared a party in default, if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration.[16] (Emphasis added.)
	GR No. 174414 2008-03-14	ELMER F. GOMEZ v. MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3, Rule 18 [now Sec. 3(b), Rule 9]); b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Section 1 (a) of Rule 37; c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 [now Section 1] of Rule 38; and d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him (Sec. 2, Rule 41). (Emphasis added) In addition, and as this Court earlier mentioned, a petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default, or even if the trial court properly declared a party in default, if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration.[42]
	GR NO. 155392 2006-12-06	ERLINDA GUANZON v. ANDREW P. ARRADAZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
First off, in Cerezo v. Tuazon,[19] the Court reiterated the remedies available to a party declared in default:a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3, Rule 18 [now Sec. 3(b), Rule 9]);
	GR NO. 158238 2006-07-20	MARY GRACE M. VENERACION v. CHARLIE MANCILLA BY HIS HEIRS CALLEJO, SR., J.
After all, an action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy. Annulment of judgment is not a relief to be granted indiscriminately by the Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory.[20] There would be no end to litigations if the parties who have unsuccessfully availed of any of the appropriate remedies or lost them through their fault could still bring an action for annulment of judgment.[21] Moreover, if only plain copies of documents are appended to the original copy of the petition, the CA may not give probative weight to such documents and opt to dismiss the petition outright for lack of substantive or prima facie merit.
	GR NO. 169091 2006-02-16	DATU EDUARDO AMPO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Litigants who are represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their cases.[12] Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence.[13] The circumstances of this case plainly show that petitioner only has himself to blame. Neither can he invoke due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[14] Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.[15] Where a party, such as petitioner, was afforded this opportunity to participate but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If said opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[16]
	GR NO. 167631 2005-12-16	JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO v. GLOBE TELECOM INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. (Emphasis supplied) In Cerezo vs. Tuazon,[4] the Court reiterated the remedies available to a party declared in default:a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3, Rule 18 [now Sec. 3(b), Rule 9]);