Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 175862 2010-10-13	REAL BANK v. SAMSUNG MABUHAY CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Herein respondent Samsung instituted Civil Case No. 97-86265 before the RTC, to recover the amount it claims to have lost due to the negligence of petitioner Real Bank, Inc., clearly a property right. The substantive right of respondent Samsung to recover a due and demandable obligation cannot be diminished by an unwarranted strictness in the application of a rule of procedure.[32]
	GR No. 177456 2009-09-04	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, BPI instituted Civil Case No. 03-281 before the RTC to recover the amount it had lent to Dando, plus interest and penalties thereon, clearly, a matter of property. The substantive right of BPI to recover a due and demandable obligation cannot be denied or diminished by a rule of procedure,[34] more so, since Dando admits that he did avail himself of the credit line extended by FEBTC, the predecessor-in-interest of BPI, and disputes only the amount of his outstanding liability to BPI.[35] To dismiss Civil Case No. 03-281 with prejudice and, thus, bar BPI from recovering the amount it had lent to Dando would be to unjustly enrich Dando at the expense of BPI.