Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
Besides, in the Resolution of the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Parial Summary Judgment (Re: Shares in San Miguel Corporation Registered in the Respective Names of Defendants Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and the defendant Cojuangco Companies), the Court already rejected plaintiff's reference to said laws. In fact, the Court declined to grant plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment because it simply contended that defendant Cojuangco's statements in his pleadings, which plaintiff again offered in evidence herein, regarding the presentation of a possible CIIF witness as well as UCPB records can already be considered admissions of defendants' exclusive use and misuse of coconut levy funds. In the said resolution, the Court already reminded plaintiff that the issues cannot be resolved by plaintiff's interpretation of defendant Cojuangco's statements in his brief. Thus, the substantial portion of the Resolution of the Court denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is again quoted for emphasis: [99]
	GR No. 192217 2011-03-02	DANILO L. PAREL v. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO VELASCO JR., J.
On April 19, 2006, this Court issued its Decision[8] in G.R. No. 146556, affirming the CA Decision.