Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. SIMEON PAREDES v. IAC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
G.R. No. 164660 and G.R. No. 164779 question the resolution of the Sixteenth Division[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 82322, which granted Kingsville's and Ong's petition for certiorari, and its order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. G.R. No. 163598, on the other hand, questions the decision of the Sixth Division[4] of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 70717, which granted FEPI's petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, and its resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
FEPI thereafter filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 70717. FEPI argued that the impending execution of the DARAB's January II, 200 I Decision is manifestly illegal, considering that it has already been reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals. FEPI emphasized that the cited proviso in the DARAB's Rules of Procedure pertains to executions pending appeal and does not apply where an appeal from the Board's decision has already been resolved and reversed.[31]
	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
We note that CA G.R. No. 70717 and CA G.R. No. 71055 were filed merely days apart by FEPI and Kingsville, together with Ong, respectively. CA G.R. No. 70717 was filed on May 31, 2002, while CA G.R. No. 71055 was filed on June 2, 2002. Yet, the supposed verification and certification against forum shopping in CA G.R. No. 71055, which was incorporated in the body of the pleading, did not mention the existence of CA G.R. No. 70717.[67] FEPI, on its part, was also duty bound to inform the Court of Appeals of Kingsville's petition. They cannot feign ignorance of each other's petition when they filed their own because they were co-respondents in the original complaint and had been represented by the same counsel m the proceedings before the RARAD and the DARAB.
	GR NO. 129704 2005-09-30	ULPIANO BALO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
If the allegations of the complaint are sufficient in form and substance but their veracity and correctness are assailed, it is incumbent upon the court to deny the motion to dismiss and require the defendant to answer and go to trial to prove his defense. The veracity of the assertions of the parties can be ascertained at the trial of the case on the merits. (Galeon vs. Galeon, 49 SCRA 516-521)[20]
	GR NO. 129928 2005-08-25	MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II COOPERATIVE v. VIRGILIO S. DAVID TINGA, J.
Now, whether in truth Annex "A" is, as entitled, a mere quotation letter is a matter that could best be proven during a full-blown hearing rather than through a preliminary hearing as this may involve extensive proof. Verily, where a preliminary hearing will not suffice, it is incumbent upon the trial court to deny a motion for preliminary hearing and go on to trial. The veracity of the assertions of the parties can be ascertained at the trial of the case on the merits.[38]