This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| By stating that the compromise agreement and the original loan transaction are separate and distinct, petitioner would now attempt to exact payment on both. This goes against the very purpose of the parties entering into a compromise agreement, which was to extinguish the obligation under the loan. Petitioner may not seek the enforcement of both the compromise agreement and payment of the loan, even in the event that the compromise agreement remains unfulfilled. It is beyond cavil that if a party fails or refuses to abide by a compromise agreement, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand.[19] It cannot, thus, be argued that there are two separate validly subsisting obligations to be fulfilled by respondent under both the compromise agreement and the original loan transaction. | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| While the general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before the filing of a petition for certiorari, the same admits of exceptions, namely: (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.[30] | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The appellate court committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC resolution. PPA avers that the failure of NIASSI to file the necessary motion for reconsideration before it could resort to the remedy of certiorari is fatal. This contention is flawed. As early as Director of Lands v. Santamaria,[49] this Court held that there are notable exceptions[50] to the general rule that a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resort to certiorari can be availed of. This rule has been applied by this Court in a plethora of cases.[51] A motion for reconsideration is no longer necessary when other special circumstances warrant immediate and more direct action.[52] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Undoubtedly, under these provisions, they are obligated to reimburse respondent.[22] | |||||