Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASSOCIATED BANK v. SPS. RAFAEL AND MONALIZA PRONSTROLLER

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 167140 2011-11-23	COL. FRANCISCO DELA MERCED v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND SPS. VICTOR AND MILAGROS MANLONGAT DEL CASTILLO, J.
Upon Associated Bank's MR, the spouses Vaca filed a motion to intervene arguing that they had a real interest in assailing the July 14, 2008 Decision, which ordered the cancellation of their title. The Court denied the intervention. It was held that the interests of the spouses Vaca in the subject property were properly represented in the action by their transferor/vendor Associated Bank, which was already a party thereto. As transferees pendente lite, the spouses Vaca stand exactly in the shoes of their predecessor-in-interest, Associated Bank.[60]
	GR No. 181847 2010-05-05	PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY NOW PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY v. ESTATE OF JESUS S. YUJUICO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The rule is well-established that if there is no showing of error in the appreciation of facts by the appellate court as in the present case, the Court treats it as conclusive.[19]
	GR No. 189698 2010-02-22	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS PUNO, C.J.
In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court[12] after consideration of the appropriate circumstances.[13] We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice.[14] Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.[15]