Samahang Optometrists sa Pilipinas v. Acebedo International Corporation

G.R. No. 117097, 21 March 1997 FACTS: "On February 22, 1991, private respondent filed an application with the Office of the Mayor of Candon, Ilocos Sur, for the issuance of a permit for the opening and operation of a branch of the Acebedo Optical in that municipality. The application was opposed by the petitioner Samahan [...]

By |2020-02-26T09:12:57+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Samahang Optometrists sa Pilipinas v. Acebedo International Corporation

Citibank, NA v. Chua

G.R. No. 102300, 17 March 1993 FACTS: Petitioner Citibank, N.A. is a foreign commercial banking corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines. Private respondents spouses Cresencio and Zenaida Velez, were good clients of petitioner bank's branch in Cebu until March 14, 1986 when they filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against [...]

By |2020-02-26T08:50:52+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Citibank, NA v. Chua

Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, Sr.

G.R. No. 51765, 3 March 1997 FACTS: Private respondent Corporation secured a loan from petitioner in the amount of P120,000.00. As part of the proceeds of the loan, preferred shares of stocks were issued to private respondent Corporation, through its officers then, private respondent Adalia F. Robes and one Carlos F. Robes. In other words, [...]

By |2020-02-26T08:17:18+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, Sr.

Roy III v. Chairperson Herbosa

G.R. No. 207246, 18 April 2017 FACTS: When Gamboa Decision attained finality on October 18, 2012, and Entry of Judgment was thereafter issued on December 11, 2012. On November 6, 2012, the SEC posted a Notice in its website inviting the public to attend a public dialogue and to submit comments on the draft memorandum [...]

By |2020-02-26T08:13:07+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Roy III v. Chairperson Herbosa

Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office

G.R. No. 193462, 4 February 2014 FACTS: The Manila Economic and Cultural Officewas organized on 16 December 1997 as a non–stock, non–profit corporation under Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 or the Corporation Code, “entrusted” by the Philippine government with the responsibility of fostering “friendly” and “unofficial” relations with the people of Taiwan, particularly in the areas [...]

By |2020-02-26T07:49:18+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office

Carandang v. Desierto

G.R. No. 148076, 12 January 2011 FACTS: The Government ordered the sequestration of RPN’s properties, assets, and business. Carandang assumed office as general manager and chief operating officer of RPN. The latter was charged with grave misconduct together with other RPN officials before the Ombudsman. Petitioner sought for the dismissal of the case on the [...]

By |2020-02-26T07:45:16+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Carandang v. Desierto

Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 177131, 7 June 2011 FACTS: This case arose when the COA issued Resolution No. 99-011on August 19, 1999 ("the COA Resolution"), with the subject "Defining the Commissions policy with respect to the audit of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines." In its whereas clauses, the COA Resolution stated that the BSP was created [...]

By |2020-02-26T07:43:15+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit

Republic v. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.

G.R. No. 184666, 27 June 2016 FACTS: Petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for the latter to provide the means for the automation of the 2004 elections. However, such contract was declared null and void as the respondent was not the winning bidder, and likewise failed to meet the standards stated in RA [...]

By |2020-02-26T06:28:13+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Republic v. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.

Lanuza, Jr. v. BF Corporation, et al.

G.R. No. 174938, 1 October 2014 FACTS: Petitioners seek to reverse the ruling of the Trial Court and the CA that they should also be bound personally by the arbitration proceeding between Shangri-La, where they were directors, and the respondent who was employed to construct certain edifices. They state they cannot be bound by the [...]

By |2020-02-26T06:24:31+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Lanuza, Jr. v. BF Corporation, et al.

WPM International Trading, Inc. and Manlapaz v. Labayen

G.R. No. 182770, 17 September 2014 FACTS: Respondent was employed by the petitioner and entered into a contract to manage and rehabilitate one of its stores, however due to the lack of funds given the contractor subsequently sued the respondent and the petitioner for the remainder. Judgement was given in favor of the contractor and [...]

By |2020-02-26T06:17:38+00:00February 26th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on WPM International Trading, Inc. and Manlapaz v. Labayen
Go to Top