Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROGELIO P. MENDIOLA v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Appeal is the remedy "to obtain a reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits."[182] A judgment on the merits is one which "determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of the formal, technical or dilatory objections."[183] It is not even necessary that the case proceeded to trial.[184] So long as the "judgment is general"[185] and "the parties had a full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions," [186] the judgment is on the merits.
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Appeal is the remedy "to obtain a reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits."[182] A judgment on the merits is one which "determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of the formal, technical or dilatory objections."[183] It is not even necessary that the case proceeded to trial.[184] So long as the "judgment is general"[185] and "the parties had a full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions," [186] the judgment is on the merits.
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Appeal is the remedy "to obtain a reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits."[182] A judgment on the merits is one which "determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of the formal, technical or dilatory objections."[183] It is not even necessary that the case proceeded to trial.[184] So long as the "judgment is general"[185] and "the parties had a full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions," [186] the judgment is on the merits.
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Appeal is the remedy "to obtain a reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits."[182] A judgment on the merits is one which "determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of the formal, technical or dilatory objections."[183] It is not even necessary that the case proceeded to trial.[184] So long as the "judgment is general"[185] and "the parties had a full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions," [186] the judgment is on the merits.
	GR No. 163360 2007-06-08	HEIRS OF IGMEDIO* MAGLAQUE v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with private respondents. A judgment is on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial.[14] It is not necessary that there should have been a trial, actual hearing, or arguments on the facts of the case.[15] For as long as the parties had full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions, the judgment is on the merits.[16] A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or final or merely technical point.[17]
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
The CA relied on justice and equity in granting an additional period of five (5) days from receipt of the February 18, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 to pay the balance due for the sale of the four lots.[38] While we commiserate with the plight of respondent, the CA ruling will not prevail over the established axiom that equity is applied only in the absence of and never against statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. [39] For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement.[40] Equity as an exceptional extenuating circumstance does not favor, nor may it be used to reward, the indolent. This Court will not allow a party, in guise of equity, to benefit from respondent's own negligence.[41]
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
The CA relied on justice and equity in granting an additional period of five (5) days from receipt of the February 18, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 to pay the balance due for the sale of the four lots.[38] While we commiserate with the plight of respondent, the CA ruling will not prevail over the established axiom that equity is applied only in the absence of and never against statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. [39] For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement.[40] Equity as an exceptional extenuating circumstance does not favor, nor may it be used to reward, the indolent. This Court will not allow a party, in guise of equity, to benefit from respondent's own negligence.[41]
	GR NO. 153514 2005-06-08	SPS. LAZARO M. ZULUETA AND PERLA SUCAYAN-ZULUETA v. JOSE WONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioners also point out that the Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Sale executed by the petitioners and the respondents was a public document; to contradict the facts contained in a notarial document and the presumption of regularity in its favor, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. The petitioners cite the ruling of the Court in Mendiola v. Court of Appeals[18] to bolster their claim.
	GR No. 103412 2000-02-03	REPUBLIC v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
A judgment is on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial.[8] It is not necessary that there should have been a trial, actual hearing, or arguments on the facts of the case.[9] For as long as the parties had full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions, the judgment is on the merits.[10]