This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that PMO was impleaded as party defendant through the amended complaint[69] dated November 25, 1987. Persons made parties-defendants via a supplemental complaint possess locus standi or legal personality to seek a review by the Court of the decision by the CA which they assail even if their co-defendants did not appeal the said ruling of the appellate court.[70] Even assuming that separate actions have been filed by two different parties involving essentially the same subject matter, no forum shopping is committed where the parties did not resort to multiple judicial remedies. [71] | |||||