Scribd
Upload
33 views1 page

Go vs. Looyuko

The document discusses a case between Go and Looyuko who were business associates that had a falling out. Go alleged that Looyuko misappropriated shares of stock. While cases were pending, Looyuko died. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions because they did not have participation of the Office of the Solicitor General as required. The petitions also did not have conformity of the trial prosecutor over the criminal case as required by the rules.

Uploaded by

Aaliyah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views1 page

Go vs. Looyuko

The document discusses a case between Go and Looyuko who were business associates that had a falling out. Go alleged that Looyuko misappropriated shares of stock. While cases were pending, Looyuko died. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions because they did not have participation of the Office of the Solicitor General as required. The petitions also did not have conformity of the trial prosecutor over the criminal case as required by the rules.

Uploaded by

Aaliyah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Go vs.

Looyuko
G.R. No. 147962 October 26, 2007

Facts:

Go and Looyuko were business associates. . Respondent is the registered owner and Go was the
manager or chief operating officer of the group of companies. Sometime in 1997, they had a falling
out that spawned numerous civil lawsuits. Among these actions are Civil Case No. 67921-an action
for Specific Performance, Accounting, Inventory of Assets and Damages and Criminal Case No. 98-
1643-a case for estafa. Petitioner alleged that respondent misappropriated and converted in his name
petitioner’s shares of stock. Looyuko died on Oct 29, 2004, while the petitions / cases were still
pending.

The Court of Appeals explained that the petition was initiated solely by petitioner and was dismissible
for it did not implead nor have the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue:

Does the petitions comply with the requirements set forth in Section 5, Rule 110? NO.

Held:

It can be observed from the two petitions that they do not reflect the conformity of the trial prosecutor
assigned to said criminal case. This is in breach of Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that
requires that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted "under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor." Although in rare occasions, the offended party as a "person aggrieved" was allowed to
file a petition under Rule 65 before the CA without the intervention of the Solicitor General, the instant
petitions before the CA, as a general rule, should be filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the
State and not solely by the offended party.

For non-compliance with the rules, the twin petitions could have been rejected outright. However, in
view of the death of respondent Looyuko, these procedural matters are now mooted and rendered
insignificant.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy