116028, it cannot render any binding decision, favorable or adverse to them, or dismiss the case with prejudice which, in effect, is an adjudication on the merits. If it did not acquire jurisdiction over the private respondents as parties to Civil Case No. For the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. It is a cardinal rule that no one must be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of another without just cause. Justice cannot be sacrificed for technicality.
SUITCASE FUSION 7 INTRODUCE DATE TRIAL
We sustain petitioner's claim that respondent trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when he issued said orders because he thereby traversed the constitutional precept that "no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law" and that jurisdiction is vitally essential for any order or adjudication to be binding. 129829 supporting private respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata are without cogent basis. Held: The questioned orders of the trial court in Civil Case No.
116028 was dismissed on May 21, 1979, for failure of petitioner to prosecute within a reasonable length of time, although in the said case, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of private respondents 129829 dismissed on the ground of resjudicata it appearing that Civil Case No. Issue: Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it ordered Civil Case No. 6 But then, petitioner sought a more speedy remedy in questioning said orders by filing this petition for certiorari before this Court. Therefore, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals both questioned orders of respondent court in Civil Case No. But the same was dismissed, on the ground that judgment on the previous complaint had become final. 11 6028 never became final as against private respondents. Petitioner maintains that the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 116028 were never served upon private respondents and, as such, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over private respondents and, consequently, over the case. Petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss, claiming that res judicata does not apply because the summons and complaint in Civil Case No. Private respondents opined that said order was an adjudication upon the merits. 129829 was filed by petitioner, a motion to dismiss was submitted by private respondents on the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata) in Civil Case No. 1A motion for reconsideration of that order was denied. 116028 for failure of the petitioner "to prosecute its case within a reasonable length of time. 129829 were filed by petitioner Republic Planters Bank against private respondent, for the collection of a sum of money based on a promissory note dated January 26, 1970, in the amount of P100,000.00. CIVIL PROCEDURE Republic Planters Bank v Molina Facts: Both complaints in Civil Case No.
0 kommentar(er)
