Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Moreover,
while
the complaint alleges
that
SANTIAGO made an offer to redeem the subject
property within the period of redemption, it is not
alleged in the complaint that there was an actual
tender of payment of the redemption price as
required by the rules. It was alleged that
SANTIAGO merely made an offer of P700k as
redemption price, which however, as stated
in complaint, the redemption money was the total
bank claim of P925,448.17 plus lawful interest and
other allowable expenses incident to the foreclosure
proceedings. Thus, the offer was even very much
lower than the price paid by petitioner as the highest
bidder
in
the
auction
sale.
Also, there was no categorical allegation in
the complaint that
the
original
period
of redemption had been extended. Assuming
arguendo that the period for redemption had been
extended, i.e., up to end of March 1992, still private
respondent failed to exercise its right within said
period.
Gochan vs. Gochan G.R. No. 146089, December
13, 2001, 372 SCRA 256 (GATCHALIAN)
FACTS:
Respondents were stockholders of the Felix
Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation and the
Mactan Realty Development Corporation.
Respondents offered to sell their shares in the
two corporations to the individual petitioners in
consideration of the sum of P200,000,000:00.
Petitioners accepted and paid the said amount to
respondents. (Receipts were issued and given to
the petitioners as proof)
Respondents, through Crispo Gochan, Jr.,
required individual petitioners to execute a
"promissory note. The former drafted the
promissory note in his own handwriting and had
the same signed by the petitioners. Unbeknown
to petitioners, Crispo Gochan, Jr. inserted in the
"promissory note" a phrase that says, "Said
amount is in partial consideration of the sale."
Respondents filed a complaint against
petitioners for specific performance and
damages alleging that the petitioners that
RATIO:
1. Under Sec 3 of Rule 7, every pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him;
otherwise it produces no legal effect.
a. There is nothing in the record of the case that
shows Tusings counsel was authorized by Jocons
counsel to sign on his behalf.
b. Tusings counsel had no authority to sign for
Jocson or his counsel.
2. A pleading which lacks proper verification shall
be treated as an unsigned pleading, and therefore
without effect.
a. A petition for review on certiorari requires
verification (Section 1 Rule 45).
b. Tuising did not explain why the SPA was
belatedly filed.
3. Lack of or a defective CNFS is generally not
curable by its subsequent correction or submission,
unless there is a need to relax the rule under special
circumstances.
a. Here there is no compelling reason to relax the
rules.
b. The CNFS is based on the rule that in the interest
of orderly judicial procedure, litigants should not
pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora.
c. The CNFS requires personal knowledge, and the
lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have
personal knowledge of the filing by his copetitioners of any action similar to the current
petition.
d. The flaw is fatal because it was Jocson, the
principal party in the original case, who did not
sign.
e. Further, Jocson filed a Motion for Issuance of
Alias Writ, signifying that he did not anymore
intend to appeal the decision of the CA.
Vicar vs FEB leasing
Maranaw Hotels v CA
Facts: Private respondent filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against herein petitioner before the
labor arbiter. The Labor arbiter dismissed the
complaint went to NLRC, the latter reversed the
formers decision. Hence, petitioner appealed before
the CA but was dismissed on account of the failure
of the petitioner to append the board resolution
authorizing the counsel for petitioner to file the
petition before the Court of Appeals. on the ground
of non-compliance with the rule on certification
against forum shopping taking into account that the
aforesaid certification was subscribed and verified
by the Personnel Director of petitioner corporation
without attaching thereto his authority to do so for
and in behalf of petitioner corporation per board
resolution or special power of attorney executed by
HUIBONHOA V CONCEPCION
Facts: