SPS. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., a Utah corporation, and its successors and assigns.
SPS. 10.35* Coal Supply Agreement (Xxxxxxxxxx Station) between SPS and TUCO, dated May 1, 1979 (Form 8-K (file no. 001-03789), May 14, 1979 — Exhibit 3).
SPS. SPS is an urban public school district and a political subdivision of the State of Missouri which is governed by its Board of Education. SPS is the Missouri Fiscal Agent for Launch. SPS’s Administrative offices are located at 0000 X. Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000.
SPS. Xxxxxx, et al., 611 Phil. 194 (2009); Xxxxxxxx Transport Inc., v. Lapanday Holdings Corp., 479 Phil. 768 (2004); Sps. Reterta v. Sps. Mores and Xxxxx, 671 Xxxx. 346 (2011); Ongsitco v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 1069 (1996); Espinoza v. Provincial Adjudicator, 545 Phil. 535 (2007). 17 479 Phil. 768, 782 (2004). 18 531 Phil. 620 (2006). 19 216 SCRA 107 (1992). We held that since the passengers suffered an injury for which compensation was due, the airline company could not be allowed to escape liability by arguing that the trial court’s orders had attained finality due to the passengers’ failure to move for reconsideration or to file a timely appeal.20 In Xxxx, we allowed the occasional departure from the general rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal only because the rigid application of the rule would have resulted in injustice to the passengers.21 We find no basis to relax the rules of procedure in the present case. While it is true that liberal application of the rules of procedure is allowed to avoid manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, it is equally true that a party invoking liberality must explain his failure to abide by the rules.22 To reiterate, Xxxxx failed to explain why he did not appeal the dismissal order while admitting that he could have done so. Xxxxxx, he clung to his argument that he had correctly filed a petition for certiorari because of the alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. Xxxxx’s reasoning is faulty. We do not see why appeal could not have been speedy and adequate. As admitted by Xxxxx himself, he received the RTC’s final dismissal order on February 24, 2006,23 yet, he waited for two months before he took action by filing the petition for certiorari on April 20, 2006.24 Indeed, if speed had been Xxxxx’s concern, he should have appealed within fifteen days from his receipt of the final order denying his motion for reconsideration, and not waited for two months before taking action.25 Moreover, an appeal would have adequately resolved his claim that the RTC erred in dismissing his complaint against Xxxxxxxx, an order granting a motion to dismiss being final and appealable. Further, we are not convinced that Xxxxx filed the petition for certiorari because the RTC allegedly gravely abused its discretion. The more tenable explanation for his wrong choice of remedy is that the period to appeal simply lapsed without an appeal having been filed. Having lost his righ...
SPS. 4.50* Indenture dated Feb. 1, 1999 between SPS and the Chase Manhattan Bank SPS Form 8-K dated Feb. 25, 1999 001-03789 99.2
SPS. 10.37* Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2016 among SPS, as Borrower, the several lenders from time to time parties thereto, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Bank of America, N.A. and Barclays Bank Plc, as Syndication Agents, and Xxxxx Fargo Bank, National Association and The Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., as Documentation Agents. (Exhibit 99.04 to Form 8-K of Xcel Energy dated June 20, 2016 (file no. 001-03034)). Xcel Energy Inc.
SPS. SPS has all necessary power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions provided by this Agreement.
SPS. Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx instituted their son-in law, Xxxxxxx XXxxxxx as their atty- in- fact, thru a SPA. Said SPA authorized MAturan to file ejectment cases against squatters occupying the lot, located in GEnSan as well as criminal cases against the latter for violation of PD 772 again in connection with the lot. Respondent, prepared and notarized said SPA. Subsequently, Xxxxxxx engaged the services of respondent in ejecting several squatters occupying the lot. While the said lot was registered in the name of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx had, however, instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration, instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity against the former. Respondent declared that he was of the belief that the filing a motion for issuance of a writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer-client relationship between himself and petitioner, and that his formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos was unnecessary in order to sever the lawyer- client relationship between them. Furthermore, he alleged that his acceptance of employment from Xxxxxxxx was for him, an opportunity to honestly earn a little more for his children’s sustenance. HELD: Respondent here was guilty of representing conflicting interests thus, he was suspended for two years. It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. That the representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of atty and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. As lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client’s case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of client’s secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. A lawyer-client relationship is not termi...
SPS. Fishing club. This data will not be shared with any other party or organisation. I acknowledge that I am fully aware of the risks associated with fishing and that by taking part I accept responsibility for my own actions. No responsibility is accepted by W-A-S-P-S Fishing Club or the landowners for loss or damage to persons or property.
SPS. The Chapter reaffirms the WTO obligations of the contracting parties. The Chapter contains provisions with regard to import checks, certificates, the approval of products and establishments and ensures low threshold consultation mechanisms. Furthermore, the Chapter: - Reinforces transparency requirements and information exchange to ensure the import and export of safe products only. - Provides for faster, detailed and predictable procedures. The Chapter also foresees the possibility to review the chapter in the future with a view of extending to the other Parties treatment granted to the EU.
