Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MILA YAP SUMNDAD v. JOHN WILLIAM HARRIGAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 187872 2010-11-17	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
Even prescinding from the different factual and legal milieus of said cases, the CA also failed to take into consideration the fact that, unlike the SEC which is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction,[46] SCCs like the RTC are still competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before them. In G.D. Express Worldwide N.V. vs. Court of Appeals,[47] this Court ruled as follows: It should be noted that the SCCs are still considered courts of general jurisdiction. Section 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 directs merely the Supreme Court's designation of RTC branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. Nothing in the language of the law suggests the diminution of jurisdiction of those RTCs to be designated as SCCs. The assignment of intra-corporate disputes to SCCs is only for the purpose of streamlining the workload of the RTCs so that certain branches thereof like the SCCs can focus only on a particular subject matter.
	GR NO. 146979 2006-07-27	HIKOI SUZUKI v. DIANA DE GUZMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving intra-corporate controversies have been transferred to courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court.[43] The case involving herein parties has not been submitted for final resolution on the merits in the SEC. Only the issue on jurisdiction was dealt with by the SEC which is the subject of herein petition. Thus, herein case does not fall within the exception adverted to in the aforequoted Section 5.2.
	GR NO. 160976 2005-06-08	SPS. ERNESTO ZARATE AND MA. ROSARIO ZARATE v. MAYBANK PHILIPPINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
The ruling of the CA that the petitioners failed to establish that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders is correct. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of personal hostility.[31] Moreover, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, especially if such was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[32]
	GR NO. 131094 2005-05-16	ATTY. JESUS F. FERNANDEZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In general, in order for a Court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties.[27] Jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the jurisdiction to hear and decide a case, is conferred by law.[28] Jurisdiction over the person, on the other hand, is acquired by service of summons or by voluntary appearance.[29]
	GR NO. 132400 2005-01-31	EDUARDO J. MARIÑO v. GIL GAMILLA TINGA, J.
Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint[40] and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.[41]
	GR No. 129368 2003-08-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The general rule is that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.[58] Hence, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available. Such a remedy will not be a cure for failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Nor can it be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.[59] However, there are cases where the cert writ may still issue even if the aggrieved party has a remedy of appeal in the ordinary course of law. Thus, where the exigencies of the case are such that the ordinary methods of appeal may not prove adequate either in point of promptness or completeness so that a partial or total failure of justice may result, a cert writ may issue.[60]