This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A liberal application of the Rules is in line with the state's policy to recover ill-gotten wealth. In case of doubt, courts should proceed with caution in granting a motion to dismiss based on demurrer to evidence. An order granting demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits.[170] This is because while a demurrer "is an aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of an action,"[171] it specifically "pertains to the merits of the case."[172] | |||||
|
2015-08-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Previously, this Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the RTC in a suit also involving a claim of ownership in the sequestered corporation, and ruled in this wise:[34] | |||||
|
2007-10-05 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that even if UHC was indeed sequestered, jurisdiction over the subject matter of petitioners' Complaint for enforcement or rescission of contract between petitioners and respondents belonged to the RTC and not the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners cited Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[35] involving Philippine Casino Operators Corporation (PCOC) which was sequestered on March 19, 1986. In said case, this Court held that the fact of sequestration alone did not automatically oust the RTC of jurisdiction to decide upon the question of ownership of the disputed gaming and office equipment as PCGG must be a party to the suit in order that the Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction may be correctly invoked, and as Section 2[36] of EO 14 was duly applied in PCGG v. Peña[37] and PCGG v. Nepomuceno,[38] which ineluctably spoke of respondent PCGG as a party-litigant. | |||||