This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-02-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| against his clients. The records show otherwise. The filing of the Motion to Require Matilde Palicte To Turn Over And/or Account Properties Owned by the Estate in Her Possession on June 7, 2000, a day after the trial court denied his motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. CEB-24293, was undeniably another attempt of the petitioners and Atty. Mahinay to obtain a different resolution of the same claim. Needless to observe, the motion reiterated the allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-24293, and was the subject of the petition in The Estate of Don Filemon Y. Sotto vs. Palicte.[19] The acts of a party or his counsel clearly constituting willful and deliberate forum shopping shall be ground for the summary dismissal of the case with prejudice, and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as be a cause for administrative sanctions against the | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the meantime, the Estate of Sotto, through the administrator, moved in the probate court (Special Proceedings No. 2706-R) to require Matilde to account for and turn over the four properties that allegedly belonged to the estate, presenting documentary evidence showing that Matilde had effected the redemption of the four properties with the funds of the estate in accordance with the express authorization of Marcelo.[9] The probate court granted the motion, but subsequently reversed itself upon Matilde's motion for reconsideration. Hence, the Estate of Sotto appealed (G.R. No. 158642), but the Court promulgated its decision on September 22, 2008 adversely against the Estate of Sotto.[10] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| (4) There must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[26] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| (4) There must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[52] | |||||