0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
233 tayangan1 halaman
The Supreme Court held that:
1) The lower court properly acquired jurisdiction over the respondents even though they did not file an opposition because the respondents were the ones who requested postponements of the hearings.
2) Courts cannot take judicial notice of records from other cases, even if pending before the same court, without a proper request from the parties.
3) The petitioner's claims were barred by res judicata since the issues raised had already been resolved in a previous case between the same parties regarding the same subject matter.
The Supreme Court held that:
1) The lower court properly acquired jurisdiction over the respondents even though they did not file an opposition because the respondents were the ones who requested postponements of the hearings.
2) Courts cannot take judicial notice of records from other cases, even if pending before the same court, without a proper request from the parties.
3) The petitioner's claims were barred by res judicata since the issues raised had already been resolved in a previous case between the same parties regarding the same subject matter.
The Supreme Court held that:
1) The lower court properly acquired jurisdiction over the respondents even though they did not file an opposition because the respondents were the ones who requested postponements of the hearings.
2) Courts cannot take judicial notice of records from other cases, even if pending before the same court, without a proper request from the parties.
3) The petitioner's claims were barred by res judicata since the issues raised had already been resolved in a previous case between the same parties regarding the same subject matter.
G.R. No. 119053 January 23, 1997 The claim that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the appellees as Judicial Admissions they did not file any opposition or responsive pleading is untenable. This is FACTS because the postponement of hearing on January 14, 1957 to May 16, 1957 was due to respondents. Likewise, the hearing set on May 16, 1957 Respondent Amancor, Inc. (AMANCOR) a corporation then owned and was postponed to July 12, 1957 upon motion of the respondents. controlled by petitioner Florentino L. Atillo III, contracted a loan in the amount of P1,000,000 with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Appellant next points out that the lower court should not have secured by real estate properties. Before the said loan could be paid, dismissed his first petition for annulment because no "parole" petitioner entered into a MOA with respondent Michell Lhuillier evidence need be taken to support it, the matters therein alleged (LHUILLIER) whereby the latter bought shares of stock in AMANCOR. As being parts of the records of L.R.C. No. 144, G.L.R.O. No. 1025, and a consequence of the foregoing transaction, petitioner and LHUILLIER L.R.C. 173, G.L.R.O. No. 1474, which were well within the judicial each became owner of 47% of the outstanding shares of stock of notice and cognizance of the said court. AMANCOR while the officers of the corporation owned the remaining 6%. As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in Due to the need for more capital to support the business operations of the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of AMANCOR, petitioner and LHUILLIER executed another MOA by virtue of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in which LHUILLIER undertook to invest additional capital in AMANCOR. As the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may a result, a Supplemental Memorandum of Agreement was entered into by have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge the petitioner and LHUILLIER which states: Additionally, if appellant had really wanted the court to take judicial notice of such records, he should have presented the proper request or F.L. Atillo III may dispose off (sic) his properties at P. del Rosario St., manifestation to that effect instead of sending, by counsel, a telegraphic Cebu City which may involve pre-payment of AMANCOR'S mortgage motion for postponement of hearing, which the court correctly denied. loan to the bank estimated at 300,000.00 and while AMANCOR may Finally, the point raised by counsel is now academic, as no appeal was not yet be in the position to re-pay said amount to him, it shall pay taken from the order dismissing his first petition, and said order had long the interests to him equivalent to prevailing bank rate. become final when the complaint in the present action was filed. Thereafter, petitioner incurred a 300,000 loan balance with Metropolitan Lastly, there was res judicata since the first petition (amending the records) Bank and Trust Company. After offsetting the amount of P300,00 with some is similar to the present petition (asking for reconveyance of land) as in both of the accounts that petitioner had with AMANCOR, the amount which instances the effect would be the reversion of 157 hectares at issue. The remained due to the petitioner was P199,888.89. Since AMANCOR failed claim for damages and other reliefs are not materially different from “such to pay, petitioner filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money. Court other remedies, just and equitable in the premises" prayed for in the first thereafter ordered AMANCOR to pay petitioner P199,888.89 plus interest. case. The court absolved LHUILLIER. The petitioner appealed claiming that LHUILLIER should have been declared jointly and severally liable with AMANCOR.
Tickler: Unenforceable Contracts, Statute of Frauds G.R. No. L-5447 March 1, 1910 PAUL REISS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Plaintiffs, JOSE M. MEMIJE, Defendant-Defendant
Full Text of IACHR Petition. On May 11, 2007 - Just before Mother’s Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult, leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States