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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    TANG

    Uploaded by

    tantum ergum
    The Supreme Court ruled that the banks were not necessary parties in the case between Beatriz Siok Ping Tang and Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. Tang had filed petitions against the banks seeking to nullify bank undertakings and letters of credit related to her distributorship agreements with Subic Bay. Subic Bay then filed a petition for certiorari against the trial court judge with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that an indispensable party must have such an interest that a case cannot be fully adjudicated without affecting their interests. However, the banks' interests would not be affected by the case between Tang and Subic Bay, so they were not indispensable parties that needed to be included in the petition to the Court of

    Copyright:

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

    TANG

    Uploaded by

    tantum ergum
    1 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the banks were not necessary parties in the case between Beatriz Siok Ping Tang and Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. Tang had filed petitions against the banks seeking to nullify bank undertakings and letters of credit related to her distributorship agreements with Subic Bay. Subic Bay then filed a petition for certiorari against the trial court judge with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that an indispensable party must have such an interest that a case cannot be fully adjudicated without affecting their interests. However, the banks' interests would not be affected by the case between Tang and Subic Bay, so they were not indispensable parties that needed to be included in the petition to the Court of

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the banks were not necessary parties in the case between Beatriz Siok Ping Tang and Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. Tang had filed petitions against the banks seeking to nullify bank undertakings and letters of credit related to her distributorship agreements with Subic Bay. Subic Bay then filed a petition for certiorari against the trial court judge with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that an indispensable party must have such an interest that a case cannot be fully adjudicated without affecting their interests. However, the banks' interests would not be affected by the case between Tang and Subic Bay, so they were not indispensable parties that needed to be included in the petition to the Court of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1 views2 pages

    TANG

    Uploaded by

    tantum ergum
    The Supreme Court ruled that the banks were not necessary parties in the case between Beatriz Siok Ping Tang and Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. Tang had filed petitions against the banks seeking to nullify bank undertakings and letters of credit related to her distributorship agreements with Subic Bay. Subic Bay then filed a petition for certiorari against the trial court judge with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that an indispensable party must have such an interest that a case cannot be fully adjudicated without affecting their interests. However, the banks' interests would not be affected by the case between Tang and Subic Bay, so they were not indispensable parties that needed to be included in the petition to the Court of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG, Petitioner, vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC.

    ,
    Respondent
    G.R. No. 162575 December 15, 2010

    FACTS:
    •Respondent Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. (SBDI) entered in two Distributorship
    Agreements with petitioner and Able Transport→ Under the Agreements, respondent,
    as seller, will sell, deliver or procure to be delivered petroleum products, and petitioner,
    as distributor, will purchase, receive and pay for its purchases from respondent
    •By virtue of the provisions of the distribution agreement, petitioner applied for and was
    granted a credit line by the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), International
    Exchange Bank (IEBank), Security Bank Corporation (SBC) and Asia United Bank
    (AUB) in favor of respondent→ All these banks separately executed several
    undertakings setting the terms and conditions governing the drawing of money by
    respondent.
    •Petitioner allegedly failed to pay her obligations to respondent despite demand, thus,
    respondent tried to withdraw from these bank undertakings
    •Petitioner then filed with the RTC separate petitions against the banks for declaration
    of nullity of the several bank undertakings and domestic letter of credit which they
    issued with the application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and
    writ of preliminary injunction→ Petitioner alleged that said contracts are oppressive,
    unreasonable and unconscionable on the ground, among others, that the prevailing
    market rate with which petitioner will be charged of as interests and penalties is
    exorbitant rendering it against public morals and policy
    •The court then issued an Order granting the TRO and requiring petitioner to implead
    respondent as an indispensable party
    •Respondent filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
    TRO and writ of preliminary injunction against respondent Judge Pizarro and petitioner
    •the CA issued a Resolution lifting the TRO issued by the RTC.
    •Petitioner claims that the CA decision is void for want of authority of the CA to act on
    the petition as the banks should have been impleaded for being indispensable parties,
    since they are the original party respondents in the RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the banks in this case are necessary parties in the petition for certiorari
    filed by respondent in the Court of Appeals

    HELD:
    NO. An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or
    subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring
    or affecting that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of
    the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be
    made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its
    final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has
    also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there
    cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is
    effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one who must be
    included in an action before it may properly go forward.

    You might also like