This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Next, Bormaheco questions the factual findings of both the trial court and the appellate court, more particularly the extent of the damage caused to the cargo. Bormaheco also challenges the findings that its forklift operator, Custodio Trinidad, was at fault or negligent, and insists that the damage to, or loss of, the cargo was due to the improper crating. Bormaheco may have forgotten that the Court is not a trier of facts and that, in this petition for review on certiorari, will not admit questions other than questions of law.[20] | |||||
|
2009-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Now, a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim. It is actually a complaint independent of, and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. In fact, were it not for Rule 6, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party defendant. Jurisprudence is consistent in declaring that the purpose of a third-party complaint is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts.[70] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, trial courts are not especially enjoined by law to admit a third-party complaint. They are vested with discretion to allow or disallow a party to an action to implead an additional party. Thus, a defendant has no vested right to file a third-party complaint.[13] | |||||