Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ACTIVE WOOD PRODUCTS v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174156 2012-06-20	FILCAR TRANSPORT SERVICES v. JOSE A. ESPINAS BRION, J.
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by petitioner Filcar Transport Services (Filcar), challenging the decision[2] and the resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86603.
	GR No. 152375 2011-12-13	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) BRION, J.
Invoking Section 1, Rule 24 (of the old Rules of Court), purportedly allowing the petitioner to depose Bane without leave of court, i.e., as a matter of right after the defendants have filed their answer, the notice stated that "[t]he purpose of the deposition is for [Bane] to identify and testify on the facts set forth in his affidavit[19] x x x so as to prove the ownership issue in favor of [the petitioner] and/or establish the prima facie factual foundation for sequestration of [ETPI's] Class A stock in support of the [Urgent Petition]."[20] The notice also states that the petitioner shall use the Bane deposition "in evidence… in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009."[21] On the scheduled deposition date, only Africa was present and he cross-examined Bane.
	GR No. 154632 2008-03-14	SPS. REYNALDO AND ZENAIDA LEONG v. EDUARDO ISRAEL TANGUANCO AZCUNA, J.
Lastly, petitioners posited that the instant case should be dismissed/suspended and consolidated with the civil case pending before the Las Piñas RTC. Taking their cue from Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10] they advanced that the consolidation of their case, Civil Case No. LP-99-0072, with Hermosa Bank's case, LRC Case No. 8843-99-11, is proper since both cases involve a common question of law and fact, with the same parties and subject matter. Aside from avoiding confusion and unnecessary cost and expense, petitioners also opined that the Las Piñas RTC, as a court of general jurisdiction, has broader jurisdiction and competence to rule upon the validity of the mortgage contracts, loan agreements, promissory notes, extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale. They further asserted that the issues raised in this case would only be determined in an ordinary civil action and not in a summary ex-parte proceeding.
	GR NO. 149739 2006-07-14	STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. CA CORONA, J.
Private respondent elevated the matter via certiorari to the CA which upheld Judge Legaspi. Eventually, in Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we granted the consolidation.[13]
	GR NO. 145441 2005-04-26	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. RODOLFO C. MAÑALAC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We do not agree. In Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[19] this Court also deemed it proper to consolidate Civil Case No. 6518-M, which was an ordinary civil action, with LRC Case No. P-39-84, which was a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. The Court held that while a petition for a writ of possession is an ex parte proceeding, being made on a presumed right of ownership, when such presumed right of ownership is contested and is made the basis of another action, then the proceedings for writ of possession would also become groundless. The entire case must be litigated and if need be must be consolidated with a related case so as to thresh out thoroughly all related issues.