This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Pulumbarit filed a Notice of Appeal dated August 19, 2000.[25] His appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69931. | |||||
|
2015-10-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Strictly speaking, Pascual et al. did not commit forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present, or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[47] Here, any action by the CA on Pascual et al.'s motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 is provisional in nature, such that it can in no way constitute as res judicata in CA-G.R. SP No. 61873. Moreover, forum shopping requires the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought in two or more pending cases.[48] Mere, there is no identity of relief and/or cause of action. CA-G.R. SP No. 61873 is limited to a determination of whether grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court in granting execution pending appeal while Pascual et al.'s motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 69931 involves a determination by the CA whether there are "good reasons" warranting the grant of discretionary execution. | |||||
|
2012-09-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The CTA ruled that St. Luke's is a non-stock and non-profit charitable institution covered by Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. This ruling would exempt all income derived by St. Luke's from services to its patients, whether paying or non-paying. The CTA reiterated its earlier decision in St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[16] which examined the primary purposes of St. Luke's under its articles of incorporation and various documents[17] identifying St. Luke's as a charitable institution. | |||||