Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the
legal standing to file the case based on the concept of “intergenerational
responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an
obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In
this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future
generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non- impairment of contracts
must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest
of public welfare.
CEREZO v. TUAZON (indispensable parties)
not the rule governing class suits under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court that in truth is involved in the proceedings at bar, but that concerning
permissive joinder of parties
The rule is that for a class suit to be allowed, it is needful inter alia that the
parties be so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all
before the court.
MATHAY v. CONSOLIDATED BANK (class suits)
the court emphasized that the purpose behind the rule on substitution is the
protection of the right of every party to due process. It is to ensure that the
deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the suit
through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.
Private respondent Belfast Surety & Insurance Co. Inc. (“Belfast”) filed a civil
action against Sarmiento for indemnification under an Indemnity Agreement
executed by them in connection with a bail bond. Sarmiento filed an answer
with compulsory counterclaim. Thereafter, upon motion from Belfast, the
judge scheduled the pre-trial. At the scheduled pre-trial, only Belfast’s
counsel appeared. Sarmiento was declared as “non-suited” and the court
allowed Belfast to present its evidence ex parte. Upon the denial of
Sarmiento’s motion for reconsideration, he filed a case for certiorari against
the judge, alleging in part that the pre-trial was premature inasmuch as
Belfast did not file an answer to Sarmiento’s counterclaim.
The requirement that the pre-trial shall be scheduled "after the last pleading
has been filed" is intended to fully apprise the court and the parties of all the
issues in the case before the pre-trial is conducted.
There are, however, recognized exceptions to the rule, making the failure to
answer a pleading of claim as a ground for a default declaration, such as the
failure to answer a complaint in intervention, or a compulsory counterclaim
so intimately related to the complaint such that to answer to same would
merely require a repetition of the allegations contained in the complaint.
PAL v. FASAP (cnfs for corporation)
FASAP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal suspension, and
illegal dismissal against PAL before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC. The NLRC
ruled in favor of FASAP. The NLRC modified the arbiter’s decision by setting
aside the finding that PAL was guilty of unfair labor practice, but affirming
the rest of the decision.
Subsequently, PAL filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, it was
accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum shopping executed by Cesar R.
Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen, Vice-President Human Resources and
Assistant Vice-President Cabin Services of PAL, respectively, who are not
parties to the case.