Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEY CONSTRUCTION v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 198223 2015-02-18	HEIRS OF TIMBANG DAROMIMBANG DIMAAMPAO v. ATTY. ABDULLAH ALUG PERALTA, J.
An interlocutory order is always under the control of the court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment.[15] This prescinds from a court's inherent power to control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice,[16] and a motion for reconsideration thereof was not subject to the limiting fifteen-day period of appeal prescribed for final judgments or orders.[17] We, therefore, find no merit to petitioners' claim that the Order dated March 6, 2006 had already become final and could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 167961 2007-04-03	SPS. MANUEL LEY AND JANET LEY v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES TINGA, J.
On 14 March 1996, the RTC, Makati City issued a Resolution[10] granting UBP's Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering LCDC and the spouses Ley to pay the amount of P18,833,674.86 plus the agreed interest and penalty charges.[11] When UBP moved for the execution of the Resolution, the new presiding judge denied the motion for execution. On appeal,[12] the Court of Appeals set aside and annulled the trial court's denial of the motion for execution.[13] On petition for review, this Court likewise affirmed the invalidity of the order denying the motion for execution per its Decision dated 27 June 2000.[14]
	GR NO. 156207 2006-09-15	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROWENA ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
SECTION 1. Summary judgment for claimant. - A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. Thus, it has been held that a summary judgment is proper where, upon a motion filed after the issues had been joined and on the basis of the pleadings and papers filed, the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact to except as to the amount of damages. A genuine issue has been defined as an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.[14]
	ADM MATTER NO. RTJ-04-1848 2005-10-25	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. ROMULO A. LOPEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The fact that FILGAMES's Mr. Cesar Marcelo testified that PAGCOR required BELLE and FILGAME to submit valuations of the properties contributed by it to the Jai-Alai operations and that FILGAME in compliance submitted an appraisal report prepared by Cuervo Appraisers, Inc. while BELLE complied by submitting as an attachment to a letter dated September 15, 1999 to PAGCOR President Mr. Reynaldo Y. Tenorio an inventory listing the value of the assets contributed by BELLE and FILGAME to the Jai-Alai operation.[31] We reiterate the rule that not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.[32]
	GR No. 110480 2001-06-29	BANGKO SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CA DE LEON, JR., J.
The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus interposed by petitioner before the Court of Appeals is not the proper remedy to question the denial of its motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 221. The Resolution and Order of the RTC of Batangas denying the motion to dismiss are merely interlocutory. An interlocutory order does not terminate nor finally dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits.[25] It is always under the control of the court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment. This proceeds from the court's inherent power to control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. The only limitation is that the judge cannot act with grave abuse of discretion, or that no injustice results thereby.[26] These limitations were not transgressed by the trial court in the case at bar when it denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss. The alleged "chaos and confusion" arising from conflicting decisions that petitioner purportedly seeks to avert by the dismissal of Civil Case No. 221 are actually far-fetched and contrived considering that any adverse decision of the CTA can be made the subject of a proper appeal.