This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-01-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| La Campana, on the other hand, accused DBP of forum shopping because of the two petitions filed before the Court of Appeals which raised exactly the same grounds and arguments.[37] These cases were docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46906 and CA-G.R. SP No. 47097. | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Also, it is significant to note that the first petition for certiorari under Rule 65[38] filed by DBP with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46906 was dismissed on technicalities. In DBP's Manifestation dated 11 March 1998, it manifested before the Court of Appeals that it was abiding by the Resolution dated 27 February 1998, and it will be re-filing the petition, which it did, so as not to delay the resolution of the substantive issues. In a Resolution dated 28 May 1998, the Court of Appeals not only denied La Campana's motion to deny instantly the second petition filed by DBP, but also required it to file its Comment/Answer to the petition, and for DBP to file its Reply thereafter.[39] This is a clear indication that even the Court of Appeals did not see the first petition as a bar to the filing of the subsequent one. As no judgment may be rendered in CA-G.R. SP No. 46906, the third requisite therefore, of litis pendentia, is lacking. No judgment to speak of may be rendered therein which may affect the judgment in the subsequent petition of the same nature. | |||||