This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We review the decision promulgated on November 19, 2002,[2] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petitioners' amended complaint in Civil Case No. 12251 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, in San Fernando City, Pampanga (RTC) for being barred by res judicata. | |||||
|
2011-09-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioners were not at liberty to split their demand to enforce or rescind the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage and to prosecute piecemeal or present only a portion of the grounds upon which a special relief was sought under the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage, and then to leave the rest to be presented in another suit; otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.[28] Their splitting violated the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective was to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts. Their contravention of the policy merited the dismissal of Civil Case No. 12251 on the ground of bar by res judicata. | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In order to comply with the constitutional mandates, there should likewise be meaningful communication to and understanding of his rights by the appellant, as opposed to a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital thereof.[46] Since comprehension is the objective, the degree of explanation required will necessarily depend on the education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation.[47] | |||||