This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The verification of a petition is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations contained in the petition have been made in good faith, are true and correct and not merely speculative.[38] This requirement affects the form of the pleading, and its non-compliance will not render the pleading defective. It is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite.[39] The courts may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking, and may even act on an unverified pleading if doing so will serve the ends of justice.[40] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To prove their claim, respondents presented witnesses who testified that the NAC promised their predecessors-in-interest-original owners of Lot No. 988 that it would be returned to them should the expansion of the Cebu Lahug Airport not materialize.[6] And respondents invoked this Court's ruling in MCIAA v. Court of Appeals[7] involving another lot acquired by the NAC for the expansion of the Cebu Lahug Airport. In that case, although the deed of sale between the therein respondent Melba Limbaco's predecessor-in-interest and NAC did not contain a provision for the repurchase of the therein subject lot should the purpose for its acquisition ceased to exist, this Court allowed Melba Limbaco to recover the lot based on parole evidence that the NAC promised the right of repurchase to her predecessor-in-interest.[8] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Respondents did not deny the admission made by their counsel, neither did they claim that the same was made through palpable mistake. As such, the stipulation of facts is incontrovertible and may be relied upon by the courts. The pre-trial forms part of the proceedings and matters dealt therein may not be brushed aside in the process of decision-making. Otherwise, the real essence of compulsory pre-trial would be rendered inconsequential and worthless.[31] Furthermore, an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded as an act of the client which renders respondents in estoppel. By estoppel is meant that an admission or representation is conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.[32] | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In any event, the purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative.[19] The requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith is neither jurisdictional nor renders the pleading fatally defective.[20] A perusal of the verification in question shows sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Rules and the perceived defects, if that be the case, are not so material as to justify the dismissal of the petition. | |||||