Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUBIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY v. SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 158866 2013-09-09	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Lastly, the petition in G.R. No. 187551 filed by Banco Filipino assails the CA's Decision[9] dated December 12, 2008 and Resolution[10] dated April 3, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 85159 which affirmed the Orders of the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 255 (RTC-Las Piñas City) dated August 31, 2004[11] and May 27, 2005,[12] dismissing Banco Filipino's complaint for reconveyance in Civil Case No. 96-0036.
	GR No. 158866 2013-09-09	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Banco Filipino's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied in the RTC-Las Piñas City's May 27, 2005 Order,[48] hence, Banco Filipino appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85159.
	GR No. 197937 2013-04-03	FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF PHILIPPINES v. SM PRIME HOLDINGS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[21] It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits[22] and authorizes a court to dismiss a case motu proprio.[23]
	GR No. 186730 2012-06-13	JESSE YAP v. CA REYES, J.
Hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action are: (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action; and (2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other.[17] Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.[18]
	GR No. 167246 2011-07-20	GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE v. CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BRION, J.
Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action [23] (also known as the "same evidence" test), [24] or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. [25] Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. [26]
	GR NO. 169494 2007-03-14	CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO CARPIO MORALES, J.
On respondents' petition for certiorari,[9] the Court of Appeals, by Decision of April 29, 2005, reversed and set aside the NLRC decision and resolution.