Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Eagleridge Development Vs Cameron Granville

    Uploaded by

    maangeli.aboga
    1 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a case between Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo N. Naval, and Crispin I. Oben versus Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. Eagleridge filed a motion to admit an opposition to Cameron's reply, while Cameron argued that Eagleridge filed their motion for production of documents out of the allowed time period, even past the extended pre-trial period from 2005 to 2011. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cameron, finding that Eagleridge was at fault for late filing their motion.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Eagleridge Development vs Cameron Granville

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a case between Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo N. Naval, and Crispin I. Oben versus Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. Eagleridge filed a motion to admit an opposition to Cameron's reply, while Cameron argued that Eagleridge filed their motion for production of documents out of the allowed time period, even past the extended pre-trial period from 2005 to 2011. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cameron, finding that Eagleridge was at fault for late filing their motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views1 page

    Eagleridge Development Vs Cameron Granville

    Uploaded by

    maangeli.aboga
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on a case between Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo N. Naval, and Crispin I. Oben versus Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. Eagleridge filed a motion to admit an opposition to Cameron's reply, while Cameron argued that Eagleridge filed their motion for production of documents out of the allowed time period, even past the extended pre-trial period from 2005 to 2011. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cameron, finding that Eagleridge was at fault for late filing their motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

    EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et. al,


    Petitioners,
    vs.

    CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.,


    Respondent.

    G.R. No.204700 November 24, 2014

    LEONEN, J.:

    FACTS
    Petitioners Eagleridge Development Corporation, Marcelo N. Naval, and Crispin I.
    Oben filed on June 7, 2013 their motion to admit attached opposition. Subsequently,
    respondent filed its reply and petitioners their motion to admit attached rejoinder.
    Respondent asserts that there was no "insistent refusal" on its part to present the LSPA, but
    that petitioners filed their motion for production way out of time, even beyond the protracted
    pre-trial period from September 2005 to 2011. Hence, petitioners had no one to blame but
    themselves when the trial court denied their motion as it was filed only during the trial
    proper.

    ISSUE

    RULING

    You might also like