This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A joint venture is an association of companies jointly undertaking a commercial endeavor, with all of them contributing assets and sharing risks, profits, and losses.[118] It is hardly distinguishable from a partnership considering that their elements are similar and, thus, generally governed by the law on partnership.[119] | |||||
|
2010-03-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.[86] It is proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal or officer. Mandamus is not available to direct the exercise of a judgment or discretion in a particular way.[87] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| For a writ of mandamus to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[33] Mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.[34] The writ will not be granted where its issuance would be unavailing, nugatory, or useless.[35] | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "a group of two or more manufacturers, suppliers and/or distributors that intend to be jointly and severally responsible or liable for a particular contract."[11] Basically, the public bidding was to be conducted under a two envelope/two stage system. The bidder's first envelope or the Eligibility Envelope should establish the bidder's eligibility to bid and its qualifications to perform the acts if accepted. On the other hand, | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the matter of property relations, petitioner asserts that public respondent exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction when she claimed cognizance of the issue concerning property relations between petitioner and private respondent. Private respondent herself has admitted in Par. 14 of her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage dated August 26, 1996 filed with the RTC of Makati, subject of this case, that: "[p]etitioner and respondent have not acquired any conjugal or community property nor have they incurred any debts during their marriage."[29] Herein petitioner did not contest this averment. Basic is the rule that a court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof.[30] Given the factual admission by the parties in their pleadings that there is no property to be accounted for, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy. | |||||