Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NAILS v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183753 2009-06-19	ARCHINET INTERNATIONAL v. BECCO PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Deterioration of commodities subject to litigation (Federation of United Namarco Distributors, Inc. vs. National Marketing Corp., 4 SCRA 867 [1962]).[53] The above ruling was reiterated in Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.[54] where we stated that execution pending appeal may only be allowed upon a showing of good reasons, such as impending insolvency of the adverse party.[55]
	GR No. 173333 2008-08-13	LUCIA MAGALING v. PETER ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Generally, laws, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal[49] and, as such, are deemed to have been waived. Basic consideration of due process impels this rule.[50] In the case at bar, however, the issue respecting Reynaldo Magaling's gross negligence was seasonably raised in the proceedings before the RTC. The testimonial evidence elicited from Reynaldo Magaling himself during his cross-examination in the RTC bears out his wanton disregard of the transactions of Termo Loans, particularly in consideration of the fact that he was the latter's President.
	GR No. 164648 2008-08-06	ERIC L. LEE v. HENRY J. TROCINO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
We agree with the appellate court's ratiocination in CA-G.R. SP No. 55667 that there is good ground to order execution pending appeal. Records show that on April 26, 2000, Urban Bank declared a bank holiday, and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) ordered its closure. Subsequently, Urban Bank was placed under receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC); five of its senior officials, including defendants (in the trial court) Borlongan and Bejasa, were placed in the hold-departure list of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation pending investigation for alleged anomalous transactions (e.g. violation of the Single Borrower's Limit provision of Republic Act No. 8791, or the General Banking Law of 2000) and bank fraud which led to Urban Bank's financial collapse.[50] Furthermore, several administrative, criminal and civil cases had been filed against Urban Bank officials, who are defendants in Civil Case No. 754. Also, in the Peña disbarment case, the Court found the existence of an agency relation between Peña and Urban Bank, thereby entitling the former to collection of fees for his services. Impending insolvency of the adverse party constitutes good ground for execution pending appeal.[51]
	GR NO. 160479 2005-06-08	SPS. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA AND REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Conversely, we reject the petitioners' argument that the ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession should have been dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.[34] In other words, when litis pendentia or res judicata does not exist, neither can forum shopping exist. Having settled that litis pendentia does not exist, it follows then that no forum shopping likewise exists in this case. The Court's ruling in Ong vs. Court of Appeals[35] is instructive, thus:As a rule, any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession. Regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of course to the eventual outcome of said case.[36]
	GR No. 154187 2004-04-14	MONDRAGON LEISURE v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK PANGANIBAN, J.
To begin with, the essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[10] A party violates the rule against forum shopping if the elements of litis pendentia are present; or if a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.[11]
	GR No. 158917 2004-03-01	EVELYN T. PARADERO v. ALBERT B. ABRAGAN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Anent the rule on forum shopping, the Court in Philippine Nails and Wires Corporation v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.,[21] citing International School, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[22] held that one party may validly question the decision in a regular appeal and at the same time assail the execution pending appeal via certiorari without violating the anti-forum shopping rule. This is so because the merits of the case would not be addressed in the petition dealing with the execution and vice versa, thus We likewise hold that respondent is not guilty of forum shopping. The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against it is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. This Court has squarely decided in International School v. Court of Appeals, as follows: Forum-shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action and reliefs sought. While there is an identity of parties in the appeal and in the petition for review on certiorari filed before this Court, it is clear that the causes of action and reliefs sought are unidentical, although petitioner ISM may have mentioned in its appeal the impropriety of the writ of execution pending appeal under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar. Clearly, there can be no forum-shopping where in one petition a party questions the order granting the motion for execution pending appeal, as in the case at bar, and, in a regular appeal before the appellate court, the party questions the decision on the merits which finds the party guilty of negligence and holds the same liable for damages therefor. After all, the merits of the main case are not to be determined in a petition questioning execution pending appeal and vice versa. Hence, reliance on the principle of forum-shopping is misplaced. There is indeed an identity of parties in the appeal of the December 10, 1993 Judgment of the RTC as well as in the Petition for Certiorari both filed by respondents before the Court of Appeals on January 10, 1994 and February 23, 1994, respectively. However, the causes of action and relief sought are different.