Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON C. LOZON v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
On 13 July 1994, Charles sent to Josefina a letter demanding for the payment of her and her late husband's loan. Charles, in the same letter, also threatened to foreclose the mortgage in his favor should Josefina fail to heed the demand for payment within ten (10) days from her receipt of the letter.[19] To these, Josefina responded with her own letter asking Charles for an extension of time, i.e., until 30 October 1994, within which to pay for all of her obligations.[20] Despite the extension, however, Josefina still failed to pay.[21]
	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
On 12 July 1997, Charles petitioned[22] Executive Judge Estrella T. Estrada (Executive Judge Estrada) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage in his favor. Invoking the provisions of Act No. 3135[23] and the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, Charles sought for the sale at public auction of the ten (10) lots originally subsumed in TCT No. 125341 PR-17485 but which are now separately covered by TCT Nos. 85825-34 in the names of Josefina and her late husband.
	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
On 23 January 1998, the Ingleses filed with the Quezon City RTC a complaint for the Annulment of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage[29] against Charles. In this complaint, the Ingleses claim that Jose and Josefina never actually consented to any mortgage on their land and that their signatures in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage were obtained thru Charles' deception.[30] The Ingleses allege that Charles had deceived Jose and Josefina into signing blank documents, one of which eventually becoming the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and another becoming the Promissory Note, on the pretense that such documents were required in a business venture that they had.[31] This complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-33277[32] and was raffled to Branch 225.
	GR No. 167916 2008-08-26	SARAH P. AMPONG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REYES, R.T., J.
Under the principle of estoppel, a party may not be permitted to adopt a different theory on appeal to impugn the court's jurisdiction.[28] In Emin v. De Leon,[29] this Court sustained the exercise of jurisdiction by the CSC, while recognizing at the same time that original disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers belongs to the appropriate committee created for the purpose as provided for under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.[30] It was there held that a party who fully participated in the proceedings before the CSC and was accorded due process is estopped from subsequently attacking its jurisdiction.