Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTATE OF LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE PANLILIO v. GONZALO DIZON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171525 2010-07-23	ST. CATHERINE REALTY CORPORATION v. FERDINAND Y. PINEDA CARPIO, J.
Meanwhile, Lizares filed a petition for review from the DARAB's decision before the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 47502. On 29 November 2000,[10] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the DARAB's decision. On 26 June 2001,[11] the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. Lizares, representing the estate of Encarnacion, file a petition for review[12] before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 148777. The case was still pending upon the filing of CA-G.R. SP No. 82909.
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
Suffice it to say that the July 30, 1999 NLRC Decision cannot and does not constitute res judicata to the instant case. In Estate of the Late Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio v. Dizon,[51] extensively quoting from the earlier case of Vda. de Cruzo v. Carriaga, Jr.,[52] we explained the nature of res judicata, as now embodied in Sec. 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in its two concepts of "bar by former judgment" and "conclusiveness of judgment." These concepts of the doctrine of res judicata are applicable to second actions involving substantially the same parties, the same subject matter, and cause or causes of action.[53] In the instant case, there is no second action to speak of, involving as it is the very same action albeit the NLRC remanded it to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings.
	GR No. 180778 2009-10-16	RURAL BANK OF DASMARIÑAS v. NESTOR JARIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
x x x The prohibition against transfers to persons other than the heirs of other qualified beneficiaries stems from the policy of the Government to develop generations of farmers to attain its avowed goal to have an adequate and sustained agricultural production. With certitude, such objective will not see the light of day if lands covered by agrarian reform can easily be converted for non-agricultural purposes.[18] (Capitalization in the original; italics, emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 170672 2009-08-14	JUDGE FELIMON ABELITA III v. P & SUPT. GERMAN B. DORIA & SPO3 CESAR RAMIREZ CARPIO, J.
(d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the same parties.[13]
	GR No. 156882 2008-10-31	ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
In Santiago v. Court of Appeals, we explained that there is "no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances."[16]
	GR No. 154096 2008-08-22	IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Whether a determinative question is one of law or of fact depends on the nature of the dispute. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain given set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact obtains when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites the calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[30]