Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIRCLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. CA AND SPS. ROBERTO JURADO AND FORTUNATA JURADO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
In any event, this court has held that "[i]t is essential, to boot, that that party demonstrate that he has a meritorious cause of action or defense; otherwise, nothing would be gained by setting the default order aside."[80]
	GR Nos. 141104 & 148763 2007-06-08	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the matter of the denial of the motion of the petitioner corporation for the re-opening of its cases and/or holding of new trial based on the technicality that said motion was unaccompanied by an affidavit of merit, this Court rules in favor of the petitioner corporation. The facts which should otherwise be set forth in a separate affidavit of merit may, with equal effect, be alleged and incorporated in the motion itself; and this will be deemed a substantial compliance with the formal requirements of the law, provided, of course, that the movant, or other individual with personal knowledge of the facts, take oath as to the truth thereof, in effect converting the entire motion for new trial into an affidavit.[45] The motion of petitioner corporation was prepared and verified by its counsel, and since the ground for the motion was premised on said counsel's excusable negligence or mistake, then the obvious conclusion is that he had personal knowledge of the facts relating to such negligence or mistake. Hence, it can be said that the motion of petitioner corporation for the re-opening of its cases and/or holding of new trial was in substantial compliance with the formal requirements of the revised Rules of Court.
	GR No. 150611 2003-06-10	JACINTO SAGUID v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, i.e., the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof.[20] The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration[21] showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect.[22] The motion need not really stress the fact that the defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer which contains his defenses is already on record.[23]