Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MARCELO B. ARENAS AND ANITA T. ARENAS v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183965 2009-09-18	JOANIE SURPOSA UY v. JOSE NGO CHUA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The doctrine of res judicata is a rule that pervades every well- regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, and (2) the hardship of the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause, nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa.[16]
	GR No. 156809 2009-03-04	ESTATE OF FELOMINA G. MACADANGDANG v. LUCIA GAVIOLA CARPIO, J.
Jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases falls on the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.[9] Since the case before the the MTCC was an unlawful detainer case, it was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. The purpose of the Rules on Summary Procedure is to prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases and to achieve this, the filing of certain pleadings is prohibited,[10] including the filing of a motion for reconsideration.[11]
	GR No. 135900 2007-08-17	SPS. AVELINO AND EXALTACION SALERA v. SPS. CELEDONIO AND POLICRONIA RODAJE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Contrastingly, in Magat, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[8] the Court explained that "[b]ad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud." In Arenas v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court held that the determination of whether one acted in bad faith is evidentiary in nature. Thus, "[s]uch acts (of bad faith) must be substantiated by evidence." Indeed, the unbroken jurisprudence is that "[b]ad faith under the law cannot be presumed; it must be established by clear and convincing evidence."
	GR NO. 164801 2006-06-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Contrastingly, in Magat, Jr. v. Court of Appeals the Court explained that "[b]ad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud."[20] In Arenas v. Court of Appeals the Court held that the determination of whether one acted in bad faith is evidentiary in nature.[21] Thus "[s]uch acts (of bad faith) must be substantiated by evidence."[22] Indeed, the unbroken jurisprudence is that "[b]ad faith under the law cannot be presumed; it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.[23]
	GR No. 137306 2001-03-12	VIRGINIA AVISADO v. AMOR RUMBAUA PARDO, J.
"(d) and there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action."[45] There is no question with respect to the existence of the first three elements of res judicata.