This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Resolutions dated May 21, 2012[2] and November 21, 2012[3] rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 116845 which dismissed outright petitioner Reicon Realty Builders Corporation's (Reicon) certiorari petition on procedural grounds. | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Enriquez v. Bautista,[3] this Court, through Mr. Justice Ricardo Paras, defined notice as "information or announcement." The word stemmed from the Latin words, notitia or "a being known or knowledge," notus meaning "known" and nosecere which means "to know." It is thus evident that the purpose of a notice is merely to inform the other party about the intended proceedings. In Bembo v. Court of Appeals,[4] this Court ruled that the sufficiency of a written notice is irrelevant where it is a matter of record that counsel and parties actually knew of the scheduled hearing, as in this case. | |||||