Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 174168 2009-03-30	SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM TINGA, J.
The allegations in the third-party complaint impute direct liability on the part of Sy Tiong Shiou and Juanita Tan to the corporation for the very same claims which the corporation interposed against the Spouses Sy. It is clear therefore that the Spouses Sy's third-party complaint is in respect of the plaintiff corporation's claims,[75] and thus the allowance of the third-party complaint is warranted.
	GR NO. 160242 2005-05-17	ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Citing the rulings of this Court in Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals[12] and British Airways v. Court of Appeals,[13] the petitioner avers that the CA erred in ruling that in denying its motion for leave to file a third-party complaint, the RTC acted in accordance with the Rules of Court and case law. The petitioner maintains that it raised genuine issues in its answer; hence, it was improper for the trial court to render judgment on the pleadings:With due respect, the judgment on the pleadings affirmed by the Court of Appeals is not, likewise, proper considering that the Answer with Third-Party Complaint, although it admitted the obligation to respondent, tendered an issue of whether the respondent's claim is connected with the third-party claim.