ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 107193   July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 107193. July 7, 1997.]

    EUGENIO TENEBRO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and DAVAO FARMS CORPORATION, Respondents.

    Moises G. Dalisay, Jr. for Petitioner.

    Vidal O. Vera Cruz, Jr. for Private Respondent.

    SYNOPSIS


    Davao Farms Corporation (herein respondent) brought an action for collection against Eugenio Tenebro (herein petitioner). Atty. Angel Fernandez represented Tenebro and acted on his behalf in the case. After pre-trial, Atty. Fernandez claimed that he had lost contact with Tenbero. Likewise, Fernandez himself did not appear at the scheduled hearings. As both Tenebro and counsel were absent on reset hearings, the trial court allowed Davao to present its evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a judgment ordering Tenebro to pay Davao Farms Corporation his unpaid purchases, interest thereon, attorney’s fees and costs. The decision became final and executory, hence, a write of execution was issued. Tenebro through a new counsel filed a petition for relief from judgment. This petition, however, was denied by the trial court as well as the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition for review.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Court of appeals.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; TRIAL; PETITIONER WAIVED NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES BUT ALSO HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF HIS REPEATED FAILURE, NAY, REFUSAL TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OF THE CASE; CASE AT BAR. — Contrary to his contention, petitioner waived not only the right to cross-examine private respondent’s witnesses but also his right to present evidence as a necessary consequence of his repeated failure, nay, refusal, to appear at the hearing of his case. As already stated, petitioner could not be found at his given address and utterly neglected to let the court and his counsel know of his whereabouts. After receiving a copy of the decision, even petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Fernandez, did not move for the reconsideration of the decision or appeal but, instead, allowed the decision to become final and executory. Needless to say, petitioner is bound by his counsel’s decisions regarding the conduct of the case, especially considering that petitioner does not complained against the manner his counsel handled the case. Nor can petitioner lay the blame on the trial court for his failure to present his evidence. Petitioner was served notice of all the hearings through his counsel of record. In addition he was served summons by the court itself. But from July 30, 1986, when the first hearing was schedule, to July 4, 1988, when the decision was rendered, petitioner never showed up in court, forcing it to reschedule the hearings several times. Neither did petitioner inform his counsel or the court of his new address or inquire from them about the status of his case. The trial court was, therefore, fully justified in terminating the trial and considering the case submitted for decision.

    2. ID.; ID.; RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; AN EQUITABLE REMEDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON FOR SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION. — A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy which is allowed only in exceptional cases because, as a rule, as final judgment should not be disturbed where a party could be have appealed or availed himself of another remedy. (1 REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 253 [1988]). Accordingly, a court may validly consider the equities of a case in order to determine whether there is a compelling reason for setting aside the decision. That is why Rule 38, 3 provides that a petition for relief from judgment must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit containing the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense.


    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 1 affirming an order of the Regional Trial Court of Davao denying petitioner relief from judgment.

    It appears that, on August 15, 1985, private respondent Davao Farms Corporation brought an action in the trial court for collection of P117,840.46 allegedly owed by petitioner for purchases of broiler chicks and egg trays.

    In due time, petitioner filed his answer claiming that his unpaid balance was only P48,843.68. He executed a special power of attorney in favor of his counsel, Atty. Angel Fernandez, giving the latter authority to represent him and act on his behalf in the case.

    On June 16, 1986, the pre-trial was terminated and the case was scheduled for hearing on July 30, 1986. Fernandez claimed, however, that after the pretrial he had lost contact with petitioner. His letter informing petitioner of the date and time of hearing had allegedly been returned unclaimed. The subpoena issued to petitioner at his given address was also returned undelivered.

    Atty. Fernandez himself did not appear at the hearing scheduled on October 5, 1987 despite due notice to him, for which reason he was ordered by the court to show cause why he should not be declared in default. On October 10, 1987. Atty. Fernandez filed a "Manifestation" in which he claimed that his failure to appear at the hearing was due to the fact that his communications to petitioner had been returned undelivered and that petitioner could not be reached by long distance telephone.

    The case was again scheduled for trial on January 11, 1988. But again petitioner and his counsel did not come. The hearings were reset several more times, but, as both petitioner and his counsel were absent, the trial court, on June 2, 1988, allowed private respondent, as plaintiff, to present its evidence ex parte.

    On July 4, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the amount of P103,690.46 for the unpaid purchases, plus interest at 14% per annum from January 25, 1985, attorney’s fees and costs.

    A copy of this decision was served on Atty. Fernandez on July 8, 1988. As the decision became final and executory, private respondent, on July 29, 1988, moved for execution of the decision. A writ of execution was issued on August 1, 1988.

    On October 27, 1988, petitioner filed, through a new counsel, a petition for relief from judgment with a prayer to quash the writ of execution, but his petition was denied on May 9, 1989. The trial court rejected petitioner’s claim that he had been deprived of due process. It held that petitioner had not informed the court of his new address or inquired from it regarding the status of the case. The trial court also found petitioner’s claim that he had a balance of only P48,843.68 to be without merit, there being no basis presented to show this, his theory being instead that the broiler chicks delivered to him had redhibitory defects.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    Petitioner appealed but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence, this petition for review.

    First. Petitioner contends that his failure to appear at the hearing of the case was a ground for considering him to have waived the right to cross-examine private respondent’s witnesses, but not his right to present evidence. For this reason, he contends that a separate hearing for the reception of his evidence as defendant should have been held by the trial court and that the trial court erred in relying on the information of his counsel that he could not be located.

    The contention has no merit. As the Court of Appeals correctly held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The theory of appellant that he was deprived of his day in court deserves scant consideration. As can be gleaned from the records, after he executed a special power of attorney in favor of Atty. Fernandez, he did practically nothing to protect his interest in the litigation. For almost three years since commencement of the suit, he failed to communicate with his counsel to inquire about the status of the case if indeed he believed he has a meritorious defense. Now, after his long slumber, he had the temerity to declare that he was denied his day in court. One who was given full opportunity to present his evidence and who failed to do so cannot complain that he was denied due process when the court rendered its decision on the basis of the evidence given ex-parte. (Ganaden v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613). In his last-ditch effort to obtain the relief demanded, he alleged that he was not notified of the decision by his counsel. Assuming, gratis argumenti, that he was not notified, the failure of counsel to notify him of the adverse judgment does not constitute excusable negligence. A party cannot avoid liability ordered in the decision appealed from on the ground that because of "the caused action and/or omissions of his former counsels, he was placed in a position no better than those in default" considering that he was given every opportunity in the lower court to present his evidence. Except for their intermittent requests for postponements and change of counsels, he never appeared in court any more, until the case was finally terminated. Furthermore, the mistakes and negligence of counsel are binding upon his client (Isaac v. Mendoza, 89 Phil. 279; Vivero v. Santos, 98 Phil. 500; Ocampo v. Hon. Caluag, Et Al., 19 SCRA 717; Javellana v. Hon. Leuterio, Et Al., 20 SCRA 717).

    Contrary to his contention, petitioner waived not only the right to cross-examine private respondent’s witnesses but also his right to present evidence as a necessary consequence of his repeated failure, nay, refusal, to appear at the hearings of his case. As already stated, petitioner could not be found at his given address and utterly neglected to let the court and his counsel know of his whereabouts.

    After receiving a copy of the decision, even petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Fernandez, did not move for the reconsideration of the decision or appeal but instead, allowed the decision to become final and executory. Needless to say, petitioner is bound by his counsel’s decisions regarding the conduct of the case, especially considering that petitioner does not complain against the manner his counsel handled the case.

    Nor can petitioner lay the blame on the trial court for his failure to present his evidence. Petitioner was served notice of all the hearings through his counsel of record. In addition, he was served summons by the court itself. But from July 30, 1986, when the first hearing was scheduled, to July 4, 1988, when the decision was rendered, petitioner never showed up in court, forcing it to reschedule the hearings several times. Neither did petitioner inform his counsel or the court of his new address or inquire from them about the status of his case. The trial court was, therefore, fully justified in terminating the trial and considering the case submitted for decision.

    Second. Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in considering the merits of the case, because the only issue raised by his petition for relief from judgment was whether he had been deprived of due process.

    This contention is likewise without merit. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy which is allowed only in exceptional cases because, as a rule, a final judgment should not be disturbed where a party could have appealed or availed himself of another remedy. (1 REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 253 (1988)). Accordingly, a court may validly consider the equities of a case in order to determine whether there is a compelling reason for setting aside the decision. That is why Rule 38, 3 provides that a petition for relief from judgment must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit containing the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero, Puno and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Per Justice Manuel C. Herrera (ponente and chairman), and concurred in by Justices Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr. and Maria Alicia M. Austria, members.

    G.R. No. 107193   July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED