This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-08-22 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Finally, the defect stated in above-quoted paragraph 7.5 of respondent's Motion for Leave, while true up until petitioner's filing of MANIFESTATION AND MOTION dated February 24, 2004, has since been remedied when petitioner filed its Reply dated January 10, 2006 wherein its counsels' Roll Numbers were indicated. As clarified in D.O. Plaza Management Corp. v. Co-owners Heirs of Andres Atega,[6] the requirement to indicate counsel's Roll Number was intended to protect the public by making it easier to detect impostors who represent themselves as members of the Bar and to help lawyers keep track of their Roll of Attorneys Number. It was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such Roll of Attorneys Number was not indicated. | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court. The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative.[21] (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2006-03-03 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In D.O. Plaza Management Corporation v. Co-Owners Heirs of Andres Atega, [42] the Court ruled that the following factors may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the rental charged: (a) the prevailing rates in the vicinity; (b) location of the property; (c) use of the property; (d) inflation rate; and (e) the testimony of one of the private respondents. [43] | |||||