Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VS.
COURT OF APPEALS
Facts
• On July 31, 1985, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell) entered
into an agreement for the distribution of Shell petroleum products by Pacific
Management & Development (Pacific) - Ramon G. Mendiola (Ramon).
• Secured by REM
• On February 3, 1998, the Makati RTC resolved the (Makati case), finding
that there had been no auction actually conducted on the scheduled date;
• that had such auction taken place, Mendiola could have actively participated
and enabled to raise their objections against the amount of their supposed
obligation; and that they had been consequently deprived of notice and
hearing as to their liability.
• Shell and Tabangao counter that their appeal was not proscribed
because the action could be said to be completely disposed of only
upon the rendition on October 5, 1999 of the assailed resolution
denying their motion for reconsideration;
• (a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
• (d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on
the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
• (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the
court allows an appeal therefrom; and
• Thus, we sustain the CA’s denial for being in accord with the rules
and pertinent precedents.
• SC further point out that for Mendiolas to insist that the appeal was
limited only to the assailed resolution of October 5, 1999 was
objectively erroneous, because Shell and Tabangao expressly
indicated in their appellant’s brief that their appeal was directed at
both the February 3, 1998 decision and the October 5, 1999
resolution.