Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Case Summary: Engr. Murry Dedam Et Al Vs Engrs. Leandro Conti Et Al. Civil Case Number 15-135089

    Uploaded by

    JImlan Sahipa Ismael
    This case summary outlines a civil case between Engr. Murry Dedam et al and Engrs. Leandro Conti et al. Key events include Engr. Murry filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Later, Engr. Murry filed motions to declare the defendants in default, present evidence ex parte, and strike the defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing the defendants did not file an answer on time. The defendants filed oppositions. Ultimately, the court granted Engr. Murry's motions, denying the motion to dismiss and declaring the defendants in default.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Summary: Engr. Murry Dedam Et Al Vs Engrs. Leandro Conti Et Al. Civil Case Number 15-135089

    Uploaded by

    JImlan Sahipa Ismael
    105 views3 pages
    This case summary outlines a civil case between Engr. Murry Dedam et al and Engrs. Leandro Conti et al. Key events include Engr. Murry filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Later, Engr. Murry filed motions to declare the defendants in default, present evidence ex parte, and strike the defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing the defendants did not file an answer on time. The defendants filed oppositions. Ultimately, the court granted Engr. Murry's motions, denying the motion to dismiss and declaring the defendants in default.

    Original Description:

    Sample

    Original Title

    Case Summary 15-135089

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case summary outlines a civil case between Engr. Murry Dedam et al and Engrs. Leandro Conti et al. Key events include Engr. Murry filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Later, Engr. Murry filed motions to declare the defendants in default, present evidence ex parte, and strike the defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing the defendants did not file an answer on time. The defendants filed oppositions. Ultimately, the court granted Engr. Murry's motions, denying the motion to dismiss and declaring the defendants in default.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    105 views3 pages

    Case Summary: Engr. Murry Dedam Et Al Vs Engrs. Leandro Conti Et Al. Civil Case Number 15-135089

    Uploaded by

    JImlan Sahipa Ismael
    This case summary outlines a civil case between Engr. Murry Dedam et al and Engrs. Leandro Conti et al. Key events include Engr. Murry filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Later, Engr. Murry filed motions to declare the defendants in default, present evidence ex parte, and strike the defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing the defendants did not file an answer on time. The defendants filed oppositions. Ultimately, the court granted Engr. Murry's motions, denying the motion to dismiss and declaring the defendants in default.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Case summary:

    Engr. Murry Dedam et al vs Engrs. Leandro Conti et al.


    Civil Case Number 15-135089

    16 March 2016 Manifestation with Motion was filed by Engrs.


    Murry F. Demdam et. Al. among which
    respectfully states that:

    1. They are foregoing with their motion


    and prayer for the issuance of a
    temporary restraining order in order
    that the honorable court may proceed
    to hear and considers the plaintiffs
    motion.

    2. Concomitant to the foregoing,


    plaintiffs request the honorable court
    and so move that the hearing be set
    and scheduled for the motion of the
    plaintiff regarding the prayer for the
    issuance of the writ of preliminary
    injunction on the soonest date and
    time

    11 May 2016 Motion to declare Defendants in default and to


    allow plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte
    with
    Motion to strike defendants Motion to dismiss

    Motion to Declare Defendants in Default

    Despite service to defendants failed to file an


    answer within 15days from respective service
    of summons to them pursuant to sec,6, rule 2
    a.m. no. 01-2-04-SC (Rules of Procedure for
    Intra Corporate Controversies), which governs
    the case

    1. Defendants Bagtasus and Fuentecilla


    did not answer the following motion
    for extension

    2. For convenience, the pertinent portion


    of the cited provisions states:
    “Sec. 6. Answer-The defendant shall file
    an answer to the complaint, serving a
    copy thereof on the plaintiff, within
    15days from service of summons”

    Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to


    dismiss from the Records

    1. First Ground - Motion To Dismiss is a


    Prohibited Pleading

    2. Second Ground - Motion filed was a


    belated and a desparate, although
    improper attempt to save the clear
    failure to file an answer

    3. Third ground – Subject of the motion


    to dismiss is a sham. There is no
    presence of Litis Pendencia in the
    following cases filed by Engr. Murry ET.
    Al against the defendants.

    9 June 2016 Defendants filed a consolidated reply.

    20 July 2016 A Reply was filed by Engrs. Murry Demdam


    to the defendant’s consolidated opposition
    respectfully stating that:

    1. That the motion filed by the plaintiffs


    deserves to be granted by the
    honorable court on the basis of
    existing facts and law.

    2. Effects of failure to fule an answer is


    provided In Sec. 7 Rule 2 of the Interim
    Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
    Controversies.

    3. All of the defendants did not file an


    answer within 15days from the receipt
    of summons.

    4. The Defendants had knowledge that


    they were going to be declared to be in
    default as manifested in there
    consolidated oppositions

    5. Despite knowledge of impending


    default, they still made a last minute
    maneuver of twisting the meaning of
    the words “As the records may
    warrant”

    6. Contrary to defendants erroneous and


    flawed posturing their motion to
    dismiss and the grounds citred are not
    included the phrase “as the record may
    warrant”

    7. Instead of meeting the basic


    arguments presented by the plaintiffs,
    the defendants did not advance any
    reason why motion must remain in the
    records of the case.

    August 2,2016 Defendants Filed for a 15-day extension to file


    for a rejoinder ( to the reply) Moreover Court
    order for hearing to be held on 4 October 2016.

    7 October 2016 Cour Order was received;

    “Wherefore premises considered 1.) The


    Motion to dismiss is Denied; 2.) Motion to
    declare Defendants in default is granted and;
    3.) Motion to strike defendants motion to
    dismiss granted”

    You might also like