Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 157592 2008-10-17	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
On July 23, 1987, the PCGG sequestered all the stockholdings, rights and interests of the seven directors and subscribers in Piedras.[5] Later, this became the subject of controversy in Civil Case No. 0034 against Roberto S. Benedicto, Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos as principal defendants and 32 other defendants,[6] among them Nestor Mata, Dominador Pangilinan and Rodolfo Arambulo, incorporators and directors of Piedras, alleged to be dummies of the principal defendants. Subsequently, the PCGG amended its complaint for "reconveyance," "reversion" or "restitution" of alleged ill-gotten wealth amassed by the Marcoses and Benedicto; Piedras was not included in the list[7] of alleged ill-gotten wealth sought to be recovered by the PCGG. However, the complaint mentions "Frozen Bank Accounts and other assets of Rodolfo Arambulo" and contains a catch-all clause: "And all other assets of all the defendants sequestered and/or frozen by the Commission pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2."
	GR No. 157592 2008-10-17	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
Subsequently, the PCGG filed with this Court another action for the "annulment of the Resolution" of the Sandiganbayan pertaining the Arambulo shares, and on February 19, 2001, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[11] we dismissed the petition, thus -
	GR No. 139895 2003-08-15	CIPRIANO M. LAZARO v. RURAL BANK OF FRANCISCO BALAGTAS QUISUMBING, J.
Let it be stressed at the outset that before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47, for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence.[12]
	GR No. 104769 2001-09-10	AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. CA PARDO, J.
Assuming that AFPMBAI was bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 40615, and be substituted for Investco, Inc., it is clear that Investco, Inc. prevailed in the case. It was the winning party.[19] It is the prevailing party which is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution in its favor.[20] It is not an option of the losing party to file a motion for execution of judgment to compel the winning party to take the judgment. As the losing party in Civil Case No. 40615, Solid Homes, Inc. can not now insist on the performance of the very contract on which it defaulted for more than fourteen (14) years. Hence, Solid Homes, Inc. has no personality to move for execution of the final judgment in Civil Case No. 40615. The trial court correctly denied its motion for execution.
	GR No. 104769 2000-03-03	AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. CA PARDO, J.
We do not agree. This ruling conflicts with the final decision of the Supreme Court on the case.[30] What is more, in determining the nature of plaintiff's (Investco, Inc.) action in Civil Case No. 40615 and defendant Solid Home's counterclaim thereto, the Court of Appeals went beyond the allegations in the complaint and ventured into speculation and conjecture. There is nothing in Investco's complaint in Civil Case No. 40615 that even remotely suggests that Investco, Inc. has rescinded the contract, or that it sought the rescission of the sale as an alternative remedy. Specific performance and rescission are alternative remedies which a party may not avail himself of at the same time.[31]
	GR No. 104769 2000-03-03	AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. CA PARDO, J.
On March 13, 1981, Investco, Inc. and its predecessors-in-interests Angela Perez-Staley and Antonio Perez, Jr. filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig, Branch 26 an action for specific performance and damages against Solid Homes, Inc.[4] In the complaint, Investco, Inc. and co-plaintiffs sought to collect from Solid Homes, Inc. the sum of P4,800,282.91 representing the balance on the purchase price due under the contract, reimbursement of P350,000.00 representing Investco, Inc.'s contribution to the expenses for eviction of squatters and the further sum of P99,559.00 for science and transfer taxes, and actual and moral damages, including attorney's fees.