This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| PSE appealed to the CA. Finvest likewise filed a partial appeal. Raquel-Santos and Mallari also filed an appeal with the CA but the same was deemed abandoned when they failed to file their appellants' brief.[44] The appeals of Finvest and PSE were docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85176. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| All other reliefs are denied.[43] | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In their motion for reconsideration,[46] Raquel-Santos and Mallari protested the CA's order to hold them jointly and severally liable for the claims of Finvest's clients on the ground that this relief was not even prayed for in Finvest's complaint. They insisted that the proper procedure to render an accounting was to specify the beginning balance, tack the values therefor, render an accounting, and adjudge them liable for the deficiency, if any. They averred that the beginning balance must be set out by the parties or, in case of dispute, by the courts. PSE likewise filed a motion for reconsideration[47] reiterating its arguments. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In any case, the Court is not in a position to grant the relief prayed for since the proper beginning balance, if indeed necessary, is not determinable from the records. In fact, petitioners, being in possession of the records relative to the missing stock certificates, have the means to determine the beginning balance. In their motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision, petitioners themselves acknowledge that the parties must set the beginning balance and only in case of dispute will the courts be called upon to intervene.[62] | |||||