Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOHN KAM BIAK Y. CHAN v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180972 2014-01-20	JONAS MICHAEL R. GARZA v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PEREZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Having thus seen that petitioner is innocent of the charges leveled against him, the Court must order his reinstatement. As a matter of course, the NLRC and CA pronouncements inconsistent with this declaration are necessarily rendered null and void. However, no moral and exemplary damages are forthcoming. Petitioner's failure to appeal the Labor Arbiter's ruling denying his claims for these damages rendered such pronouncement final and executory; he may no longer obtain a modification or reversal of the Decision on the issue. A party who did not appeal from the decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from.[62]
	GR No. 183952 2013-09-09	CZARINA T. MALVAR v. KRAFT FOOD PHILS. BERSAMIN, J.
These circumstances show that Malvar and the respondents needed an escape from greater liability towards the Intervenor, and from the possible obstacle to their plan to settle to pay. It cannot be simply assumed that only Malvar would be liable towards the Intervenor at that point, considering that the Intervenor, had it joined the negotiations as her lawyer, would have tenaciously fought all the way for her to receive literally everything that she was entitled to, especially the benefits from the stock option. Her rush to settle because of her financial concerns could have led her to accept the respondents' offer, which offer could be further reduced by the Intervenor's expected demand for compensation. Thereby, she and the respondents became joint tort-feasors who acted adversely against the interests of the Intervenor. Joint tort-feasors are those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.[54] They are also referred to as those who act together in committing wrong or whose acts, if independent of each other, unite in causing a single injury.[55] Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. As regards the extent of their respective liabilities, the Court said in Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals:[56]
	GR No. 170596 2008-11-28	NGO SIN SING v. LI SENG GIAP NACHURA, J.
(d) There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.[28]
	GR No. 158332 2008-02-11	MARICALUM MINING CORPORATION v. REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While it is settled that a party who did not appeal from the decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the judgment appealed from, nevertheless, when the rights and liability of the defendants are so interwoven and dependent as to be inseparable, in which case, the modification of the appealed judgment in favor of appellant operates as a modification to Gen. Yoro who did not appeal. In this case, the liabilities of Gen. Yoro and appellant being solidary, the above exception applies. [29]