Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HLC CONSTRUCTION v. EMILY HOMES SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180394 2008-09-29	MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION TINGA, J.
In the instances where the jurisdiction of the HLURB was upheld, the allegations in the complaint clearly showed that the case involved the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a sale of real estate under P.D. No. 957,[25] or the complaint for specific performance sought to compel the subdivision developer to comply with its undertaking under the contract to sell,[26] or the claim by the subdivision developer would have been properly pleaded as a counterclaim in the HLURB case filed by the buyer against the developer to avoid splitting causes of action.[27]
	GR NO. 156536 2006-10-31	JOSEPH CUA v. GLORIA A. VARGAS AZCUNA, J.
Thus, when all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in thecertification against forum shopping substantially complies with the rules.[34] The co-respondents of respondent Gloria Vargas in this case were her children. In order not to defeat the ends of justice, the Court deems it sufficient that she signed the petition on their behalf and as their representative.
	GR NO. 153817 2006-03-31	NOLITO D. SOLMAYOR v. ANTONIO L. ARROYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While we may agree with respondent's contention that the absence of the signatures of the eight other petitioners in the certification against forum shopping causes the petition to be defective and is therefore a valid cause for the dismissal of the instant petition, this conclusion, however, will not deter this Court from proceeding with the judicial determination of the important legal issues herein. The Court has stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective.[8] The strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[9] It does not thereby prohibit substantial compliance with provisions under justifiable circumstances.[10] All petitioners as occupants of respondent's land filed the instant petition as a collective group, raising the same arguments to defend their rights. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for the four petitioners to speak for and in behalf of their co-petitioners that they have not filed any action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues.[11] Thus, the execution of the certificate against forum shopping by only four petitioners in behalf of the co-petitioners constitute substantial compliance.[12]
	GR NO. 168696 2006-02-28	MA. LUTGARDA P. CALLEJA v. JOSE PIERRE A. PANDAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Such being the case, RTC-Br. 58 did not have the requisite authority or power to order the transfer of the case to another branch of the Regional Trial Court. The only action that RTC-Br. 58 could take on the matter was to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In HLC Construction and Development Corp. v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners' Association,[13] the Court held that the trial court, having no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, should dismiss the same so the issues therein could be expeditiously heard and resolved by the tribunal which was clothed with jurisdiction.
	GR NO. 165821 2005-06-21	HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association,[19] it was held that the signature of only one of the petitioners in the certification against forum shopping substantially complied with rules because all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense.
	GR No. 124809 2001-12-19	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO SAUL QUISUMBING, J.
Both accused are ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim, John Serojo, the amount of P50,000.00; actual damages for the victim Rodrigo Serojo in the amount of P20,000.00, and to pay the costs.[6] On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision, with the sole modification such that the penalty imposed in Crim. Case No. 39360 is "EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as Minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of RECLUSION TEMPORAL as Maximum."[7]