This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, Land Bank claims that it argued before the CA that Oñate cannot sue on Trust Account Nos. 01-014 and 01-017. While Oñate alleged that said accounts were opened for an undisclosed principal, he did not, however, join as an indispensable party said principal in violation of Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.[56] Unfortunately, the CA sidestepped the issue and proceeded to grant Oñate the unaccounted withdrawals from said accounts in the aggregate amounts of P47,785,385.91 and $3,210,222.85. Following Quilatan v. Heirs of Lorenzo Quilatan,[57] Land Bank insists that this case should be remanded to the trial court even if the issue of failure to implead an indispensable party was raised for the first time in a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's Decision. | |||||
|
2013-12-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| However, in the cases of Quilatan, et al. v. Heirs of Quilatan, et al.[66] and Lagunilla, et al. v. Monis, et al.,[67] the Court remanded the case to the RTC for the impleading of indispensable parties. On the other hand, in Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[68] PepsiCo, Inc. v. Emerald Pizza,[69] and Valdez-Tallorin, v. Heirs of Tarona, et al.,[70] the Court directly ordered that the indispensable parties be impleaded. | |||||