GG LAWYER

CANON 5 – Rule 5.02 FLORENCE SCHUMAN v. JUDGE EFREN M. CACATIAN A.M. No. RTJ-11-2279, April 6, 2011             Schuman is one of the children of Norma Del Mar who is the party-plaintiff in a Civil Case, entitled  Norma Del Mar v. Robert Del Mar  for reconveyance of ownership and possession of disputed properties. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff on October 21, 1997 and this was rendered final by the Supreme Court in its decision dated March 13, 2002. On September 7, 2005, upon motion of plaintiff-appellee, Judge Efren Cacatian issued a Writ of Execution to implement the October 21, 1997 Decision of the trial court. However, before the full implementation of the writ of execution, Judge Cacatian called the plaintiffs in his chamber for a conference. During the conference, Judge Cacatian proposed a package deal for the issuance of the titles of the subject properties in the names of the three...

Complaint for Sum of Money and Specific Performance with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary attachment and damages NANITO Z. EVANGELISTA* (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, LEOVIGILDA C. EVANGELISTA), v. SPOUSES NEREO V. ANDOLONG III AND ERLINDA T. ANDOLONG AND RINO AMUSEMENT INNOVATORS, INC. G.R. No. 221770 First Division November 16, 2016 Perlas-Bernabe, J. Facts: Petitioner Nanito and Respondent Sps. Andolong entered into various memoranda of agreement, as well as deeds of assignment/sale with right to repurchase over machines, equipment, and amenities, which were used in the operations of amusement centers in different malls, in Cebu. The parties agreed that they would equally share, i.e., 50%-50%, from the net profits of said amusement centers and that respondents would remit Nanito's share on the 15th and 30th of the month. Claiming that respondents failed to comply with their obligation to remit his share of th...

Complaint for Damages WILLIAM ENRIQUEZ AND NELIA-VELA ENRIQUZ vs. ISAROG LINE TRANSPORT, INC. AND VICTOR SEDENIO G.R. No. 212008 Third Division November 16, 2016 Peralta, J. Facts: Sonny Enriquez was a passenger of a bus owned and operated by respondent Isarog Line Express driven by Victor Sedenio on July 7, 1998. While traversing the diversion road at Silangang Malicboy, Pagbilao, Quezon, said bus collided with another bus owned by Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. which was being driven by Primitivo Aya-ay. As a result of the impact between the buses, several passengers died, including Sonny, who was twenty-six (26) years old at that time. Sonny's parents, petitioners William Enriquez and Nelia Vela-Enriquez, filed a complaint for damages against Isarog Line and Philtranco as well as their drivers before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur. On February 24, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision finding Isarog Line, Sedenio, Phil...

Specific performance, revocation of certificate of registration, refund of payments, damages and attorney's fees PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION v. SPOUSES SOTERO OCTOBRE, JR. AND HENRISSA A. OCTOBRE, AND CHINA BANKING CORPORATION G.R. No. 186976 Third Division December 07, 2016 Jardeleza, J. Facts: The Respondents Spouses Octobre entered into a Contract to Sell with Petitioner Pryce Properties Corporation for the purchase of two lots located in Puerto Heights, Cagayan de Oro City. The Spouses Octobre was able to fully pay the purchase price and all other charges in relation to the property. However, despite repeated demands, Pryce failed to deliver the certificate of titles to the Spouses. The latter then filed a complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for specific performance, revocation of certificate of registration, refund of payments, damages and attorney's fees. It was later on found out that the reason why Pryce was un...

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT source:wikipedia Having access to the internet is indeed advantageous to any law students. It makes searching for cases, jurisprudence or legal principles a lot easier. But if there’s one thing you can’t count on Google, it’s searching for CASE DIGESTS, well for Philippine Cases that is.. I created this blog – GOOD GAME LAWYER – to share Case Digests that I personally made in my 4 years of studying law. It would include case digests of Philippine Supreme Court decisions in all fields of law. However, I also plan to add other contents like my experiences in law school, the study of law, legal developments and news, and other law-related topics.

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. TOMAS CUENCA, MARCELINA CUENCA, MILAGROS CUENCA, BRAMIE T. TAYACTAC, and MANUEL D. MARANON, JR. G.R. No. 173297, March 6, 2013 FACTS: Marañon filed a complaint with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in the RTC against the Cuencas and Tayactac for the collection of a sum of money and damages. The RTC granted the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment conditioned upon the posting of a bond of P1 Million executed in favor of the Cuencas. Marañon posted bond in the amount of P1 Million issued by Stronghold Insurance. Enforcing the writ of preliminary attachment, the sheriff levied upon the equipment, supplies, materials and various other personal property belonging to Arc Cuisine, Inc., to which the respondents where stockholders. But the levied properties were ordered by the CA to be delivered back to the Cuencas and Tayactac due to the damages sustained from the enforceme...

VICTORIO P. DIAZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LEVI STRAUSS [PHILS.], INC. G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013 FACTS: Victoria Diaz was charged with violation of Section 155, in relation to Section 170, of RA 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code. He allegedly sells counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring shops in Almanza and Talon, Las Piñas City. The RTC found Diaz guilty as charged. Diaz appealed, but the CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that Diaz had not filed his appellant’s brief on time despite being granted his requested several extension periods. ISSUE: Whether the CA properly dismissed the appeal of Diaz due to the late filing of his appellant’s brief. RULING: Yes. The SC held that the CA properly dismissed the appeal. According to the SC, the usage of the word may in Section 1(e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon failure to file the appellant’s brief is not mandatory, but discretionary. Verily, the fai...