Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REYNALDO CANO CHUA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 161220 2008-07-30	BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The principle of laches or "stale demands" ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier, or the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[42]
	GR No. 176150 2008-06-25	IBARRA P. ORTEGA v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is settled that the Court is not a trier of facts and accords great weight to the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve factual matters.[41] It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[42] Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[43]
	GR No. 176627 2007-08-24	GLORY PHILIPPINES v. BUENAVENTURA B. VERGARA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Further, the employment contracts did not indicate the duration and scope of the project or undertaking as required by law. It is not enough that an employee is hired for a specific project or phase of work to qualify as a project employee. There must also be a determination of, or a clear agreement on, the completion or termination of the project at the time the employee was engaged,[17] which is absent in this case.
	GR NO. 155785 2007-04-13	SIMPLICIO GALICIA v. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ VDA. DE MINDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The principle of laches or "stale demands" ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier, or the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[20]
	GR No. 156800 2004-11-25	ISIDORO A. PADILLA v. LUIS ALIPIO PUNO, J.
A few years after or on December 13, 2001, Isidoro A. Padilla, Jr., his sister, Clara Rita A. Padilla, and their caretaker/overseer, Joseph Haldos, filed an action for ejectment,[8] root of the present petition, against respondent spouses Luis and Milagros Alipio. Petitioners alleged that they were the lawful and peaceful possessors, with a preferential right to buy, of a 288-square meter property located at No. 80 Ilang-Ilang St., Pingkian Village III, Brgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City; and, that respondent spouses illegally usurped possession thereof sometime in 1998 and refused to pay them rent. Respondent spouses denied that petitioners were the peaceful and lawful possessors of the subject property. On the contrary, they were defendants in Civil Case No. 7608 for ejectment against whom a judgment for eviction was rendered in favor of the spouses Marcelino and Fortuna Barba who had executed a Contract to Sell the disputed property in respondents' favor since then.