Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PINGOL LAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM COMPANY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 162608 2010-07-26	ADRIAN WILSON INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES v. TMX PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Both the trial court and the CA held AWIA liable for the cost of 11 shoring columns. AWIA no longer challenged this ruling when it withdrew its appeal to the appellate court, rendering the judgment final and executory.[24] We also found that AWIA had breached its duty of contract administration. Had the effects on the marginal strength of the concrete been promptly disclosed to TMX, the cracks and deflections could have been rectified by the contractor before it was issued its final certification of payment and the owner could have been spared from further expenses. There is a causal connection between AWIA's negligence and the expenses incurred by TMX. The latter was compelled to shutdown the plant during the workdays in December to repair the roof. In the process, it incurred expenses for the repairs, including the salaries of its workers who were put on forced leave, for which it can ask for reimbursement as actual damages.
	GR No. 163344 2009-03-20	VILLARICA PAWNSHOP AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Even when appeal is available and is the proper remedy, the Supreme Court has allowed a writ of certiorari (1) where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy; (2) where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (3) for certain special considerations, as public welfare or public policy; (4) where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in case of acquittal, there could be no remedy; (5) where the order is a patent nullity; and (6) where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations.[16]
	GR NO. 147958 2005-03-31	AIDA LUGAYAN v. SPS. CORAZON AND ANTONIO TIZON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On the issue of forum shopping, suffice it to say that it may only exist where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other,[5] which are not obtaining here.
	GR NO. 137694 2005-01-17	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LA CAMPANA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Basic is the doctrine that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by certiorari; it cannot be the subject of appeal, until final judgment or order is rendered.[41] The remedy against an interlocutory order is not to resort forthwith to certiorari, but, to continue the case in due course and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law.[42] However, under certain situations, recourse to the special civil action for certiorari or mandamus is considered appropriate:(a) when the trial court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction;
	GR No. 137619 2001-02-06	REYNALDO L. LAUREANO v. BORMAHECO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
On November 10, 1997, Reynaldo Laureano filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the two RTC Orders (dated September 25, 1997 and November 4, 1997).[7] The Petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in a Decision promulgated on June 18, 1998. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Laureano was denied on February 18, 1999. Hence this petition.