Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CORONA INTERNATIONAL v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 146979 2006-07-27	HIKOI SUZUKI v. DIANA DE GUZMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners' argument that the supplemental pleading should be dismissed for non-compliance with the alleged condition precedent under Section 69 of the Corporation Code is unavailing. The Court notes that this issue was never alleged or raised in the proceedings before the SEC. It was raised for the first time in petitioners' petition for certiorari and prohibition in the CA. It is settled that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[40] Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.[41] This principle equally applies to special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65.[42] Thus, petitioners are deemed to have waived such issue for their failure to raise the same before the SEC.
	GR NO. 141447 2006-05-04	MACABANGKIT v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
As provided in Section 2, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, execution of the judgment or final order pending appeal is discretionary. It is the exception to the rule that only a final judgment may be executed, hence, must be strictly construed. Execution pending appeal should not be granted routinely but only in extraordinary circumstances.[26] However, if the trial court grants execution pending appeal in the absence of good reasons therefor, it is incumbent upon the CA to issue a writ of certiorari; failure to do so would constitute grave abuse of discretion on its part.[27]
	GR NO. 164857 2005-04-11	FLEXO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COLUMBUS FOODS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Since the execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the existence of "good reasons" is essential.[15] "Good reasons" has been held to consist of compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory. Such reasons must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.[16] The rules do not specify the "good reasons" to justify execution pending appeal, thus, it is the discretion of the court to determine what may be considered as such.