2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
450+ Case doctrines
from February 2013
To June 2019
JOFREY Q. BOTOR, JR.
/ Mercantile Law /
1
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /
Dyannah Alexa Marie Ramacho
Project Jurisprudence - Philippines
/ Mercantile Law /
2
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
CASE DOCTRINES
PRYCE CORPORATION vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 172302 / February 18, 2014
Nevertheless, while the Interim Rules (of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation) does
not require the holding of a hearing before the issuance of a stay order, neither does
it prohibit the holding of one. Thus, the trial court has ample discretion to call a
hearing when it is not confident that the allegations in the petition are sufficient in
form and substance, for so long as this hearing is held within the five (5)–day period
from the filing of the petition — the period within which a stay order may issue as
provided in the Interim Rules.
ABOITIZ EQUITY VENTURES, INC. vs. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN
G.R. No. 197530 / July 9, 2014
The so-called veil of corporation fiction treats as separate and distinct the affairs of
a corporation and its officers and stockholders. As a general rule, a corporation will
be looked upon as a legal entity, unless and until sufficient reason to the contrary
appears. When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify
wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an
association of persons. Also, the corporate entity may be disregarded in the interest
of justice in such cases as fraud that may work inequities among members of the
corporation internally, involving no rights of the public or third persons. In both
instances, there must have been fraud and proof of it. For the separate juridical
personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and
convincingly established. It cannot be presumed.
PEOPLE'S TRANS-EAST ASIA INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. DOCTORS OF
NEW MILLENNIUM HOLDINGS, INC.
G.R. No. 172404 / August 13, 2014
The liabilities of an insurer under the surety bond are not extinguished when the
modifications in the principal contract do not substantially or materially alter the
principal’s obligations. The surety is jointly and severally liable with its principal when
the latter defaults from its obligations under the principal contract.
/ Mercantile Law /
3
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR. vs. JOHN S. UMALE
G.R. No. 172843 / September 24, 2014
G.R. No. 172881
The Court of Appeals has no power to appoint a receiver or management committee.
The Regional Trial Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
intra-corporate controversies, including incidents of such controversies. These
incidents include applications for the appointment of receivers or management
committees.
GERARDO LANUZA, JR. vs. BF CORPORATION
G.R. No. 174938 / October 1, 2014
Corporate representatives may be compelled to submit to arbitration proceedings
pursuant to a contract entered into by the corporation they represent if there are
allegations of bad faith or malice in their acts representing the corporation.
HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 168616 / January 28, 2015
vs.
LA
SAVOIE
DEVELOPMENT
The Supreme Court held in one case that trust is the legal relationship between one
person having an equitable ownership in property and another person owning the legal
title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the
performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Trusts are
either express or implied. An express trust is created by the direct and positive acts of
the parties, by some writing or deed or will or by words evidencing an intention to create
a trust. No particular words are required for the creation of an express trust, it being
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended.
On the other hand, implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible
from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are superinduced on the
transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently of the particular
intention of the parties. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts.
These two are differentiated from each other as follows:
ch
Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration
and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed
always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or
circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person
thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal
title for the benefit of another. On the other hand, constructive trusts are created
by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent
/ Mercantile Law /
4
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud,
duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which
he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.
ABS-CBN CORPORATION vs. FELIPE GOZON
G.R. No. 195956 / March 11, 2015
In its current form, the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum and
prescribes a strict liability for copyright infringement. Good faith, lack of knowledge
of the copyright, or lack of intent to infringe is not a defense against copyright
infringement. Copyright, however, is subject to the rules of fair use and will be judged
on a case-to-case basis. Finding probable cause includes a determination of the
defendant's active participation, particularly when the corporate veil is pierced in
cases involving a corporation's criminal liability.
ABS-CBN CORPORATION vs. FELIPE GOZON
G.R. No. 195956 / March 11, 2015
News should be differentiated from expression of the news, particularly when the
issue involves rebroadcast of news footage. The Court of Appeals also erroneously
held that good faith, as well as lack of knowledge of infringement, is a defense against
criminal prosecution for copyright and neighboring rights infringement. In its current
form, the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum and prescribes a strict
liability for copyright infringement. Good faith, lack of knowledge of the copyright, or
lack of intent to infringe is not a defense against copyright infringement. Copyright,
however, is subject to the rules of fair use and will be judged on a case-to-case basis.
Finding probable cause includes a determination of the defendant's active
participation, particularly when the corporate veil is pierced in cases involving a
corporation's criminal liability.
SEC vs. SUBIC BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
G.R. No. 179047 / March 11, 2015
Intra-corporate controversies, previously under the Securities and Exchange
Commission's jurisdiction, are now under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts
designated as commercial courts. However, the transfer of jurisdiction to the trial
courts does not oust the Securities and Exchange Commission of its jurisdiction to
determine if administrative rules and regulations were violated.
/ Mercantile Law /
5
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
METROPOLITAN BANK AND
ENTERPRISES
G.R. No.178407 / March 18, 2015
TRUST
COMPANY
vs.
S.F.
NAGUIAT
Act No. 1956 (The Insolvency Law) impliedly requires a secured creditor to ask the
permission of the insolvent court before said creditor can foreclose the mortgaged
property.
PIONEER INSURANCE SURETY CORPORATION vs. MORNING STAR TRAVEL &
TOURS, INC.
G.R. No. 198436 / July 08, 2015
As a general rule, a corporation has a separate and distinct personality from those
who represent it. Its officers are solidarily liable only when exceptional circumstances
exist, such as cases enumerated in Section 31 of the Corporation Code. The liability
of the officers must be proven by evidence sufficient to overcome the burden of proof
borne by the plaintiff.
The mere fact that Morning Star has been incurring huge losses and that it has no
assets at the time it contracted large financial obligations to IATA, cannot be
considered that its officers, Defendants-Appellants x x x acted in bad faith or such
circumstance would amount to fraud, warranting personal and solidary liability of its
corporate officers. The same is also true with the fact that Morning Star Management
Ventures Corporation and Pic 'N Pac Mart, Inc., corporations having the same set of
officers as Morning Star, were doing relatively well during the time that the former
incurred huge losses. Thus, only Morning Star should be held personally liable to
Plaintiff-Appellee, and not its corporate officers.
Piercing the corporate veil in order to hold corporate officers personally liable for the
corporation's debts requires that "the bad faith or wrongdoing of the director must
be established clearly and convincingly [as] [b]ad faith is never presumed."
CELSO F. PASCUAL, SR. vs. CANIOGAN CREDIT AND DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATIVE
G.R. No. 172980 / July 22, 2015
An appeal of the outright dismissal of a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory
order of a lower court becomes moot and academic where, during its pendency,
judgment on the merits has been rendered in the main case and has become final
and executory. An intra-cooperative dispute between two officers on one hand and
/ Mercantile Law /
6
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
the Board of Directors on the other falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts,
not of the Labor Arbiter.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGILIO M. TATLONGHARI
G.R. No. 170458 / November 23, 2015
The notation "in trust for" or "for escrow" that comes with deposited funds indicates
that the deposit is for the benefit of a third party. In this case, Asset Privatization
Trust deposited funds "in trust for" Pantranco North Express, Inc., (Pantranco) a
corporation under the management of Asset Privatization Trust. These funds belong
to Pantranco. Further, in the absence of evidence that Asset Privatization Trust is
authorized to collect Pantranco's indebtedness to Philippine National Bank, the
subject funds can be garnished to satisfy the claims of Pantranco's creditors.
When Pantranco was under sequestration, it remained to be a private corporation,
and its funds also remained to be private. Although the Presidential Commission on
Good Government is a government agency, it does not follow that Pantranco's funds
were converted into public funds by the mere fact that its conservator was a
government agency.
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 189509 / November 23, 2015
COMPANY
vs.
G&P
BUILDERS,
Corporate rehabilitation is one of the remedies that a financially stressed company
can opt for to raise itself from insolvency.
[It] is one of many statutorily provided remedies for businesses that experience a
downturn. Rather than leave the various creditors unprotected, legislation now
provides for an orderly procedure of equitably and fairly addressing their concerns.
Corporate rehabilitation allows a court-supervised process to rejuvenate a
corporation.
ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209387 / January 11, 2016
Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities, although done without
search warrants, are not unreasonable searches per se. Constitutional provisions
protecting privacy should not be so literally understood so as to deny reasonable
safeguards to ensure the safety of the traveling public.
/ Mercantile Law /
7
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC. vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS
G.R. No. 194964-65 / January 11, 2016
Acts of an officer that arc not authorized by the board of directors/trustees do not
bind the corporation unless the corporation ratifies the acts or holds the officer out
as a person with authority to transact on its behalf.
MARCELINO M. FLORETE vs. ROGELIO M. FLORETE
GR. No. 174909 / January 20, 2016
G.R. No. 177275
A stockholder may suffer from a wrong done to or involving a corporation, but this
does not vest in the aggrieved stockholder a sweeping license to sue in his or her
own capacity. The determination of the stockholder's appropriate remedy—whether
it is an individual suit, a class suit, or a derivative suit—hinges on the object of the
wrong done. When the object of the wrong done is the corporation itself or "the whole
body of its stock and property without any severance or distribution among individual
holders,"1 it is a derivative suit, not an individual suit or class/representative suit,
that a stockholder must resort to.
VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC. vs. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC.
G.R. No. 177382 / February 17, 2016
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure to assail the final orders and
decisions in corporate rehabilitation cases filed under the Interim Rules of Procedure
on Corporate Rehabilitation. Liberality in the application of the rules is not an end in
itself. It must be pleaded with factual basis and must be allowed for equitable ends.
There must be no indication that the violation of the rule is due to negligence or
design. Liberality is an extreme exception, justifiable only when equity exists.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. vs. DIRECTOR EMMA C. FRANCISCO
G.R. No. 174379 / August 31, 2016
A patent is granted to provide rights and protection to the inventor after an invention
is disclosed to the public. It also seeks to restrain and prevent unauthorized persons
from unjustly profiting from a protected invention. However, ideas not covered by a
patent are free for the public to use and exploit. Thus, there are procedural rules on
the application and grant of patents established to protect against any infringement.
To balance the public interests involved, failure to comply with strict procedural rules
will result in the failure to obtain a patent.
/ Mercantile Law /
8
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
THE PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION vs. UNOCAL
PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 190187 / September 28, 2016
The merger of a corporation with another does not operate to dismiss the employees
of the corporation absorbed by the surviving corporation. This is in keeping with the
nature and effects of a merger as provided under law and the constitutional policy
protecting the rights of labor. The employment of the absorbed employees subsists.
Necessarily, these absorbed employees are not entitled to separation pay on account
of such merger in the absence of any other ground for its award.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING CORPORATION vs.
PABLITO O. LIM
G.R. No. 172948 / October 05, 2016
An action for injunction filed by a corporation generally does not lie to prevent the
enforcement by a stockholder of his or her right to inspection.
DIVINA PALAO vs. FLORENTINO III INTERNATIONAL, INC.
G.R. No. 186967 / January 18, 2017
The Intellectual Property Office's own Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings (which
governs petitions for cancellations of a mark, patent, utility model, industrial design,
opposition to registration of a mark and compulsory licensing, and which were in
effect when respondent filed its appeal) specify that the Intellectual Property Office
"shall not be bound by the strict technical rules of procedure and evidence.
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. LIBERTY CORRUGATED
BOXES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 184317 / January 25, 2017
A corporation with debts that have already matured may still file a petition for
rehabilitation under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporation Rehabilitation.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
G.R. No. 205045 / January 25, 2017
G.R. No. 205723
In intellectual property law, a registered trademark owner has the right to prevent
others from the use of the same mark (brand) for identical goods or services. The
use of an identical or colorable imitation of a registered trademark by a person for
the same goods or services or closely related goods or services of another party
/ Mercantile Law /
9
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
constitutes infringement. It is a form of unfair competition because there is an
attempt to get a free on the reputation and selling power of another manufacturer
by passing of one's goods as identical or produced by the same manufacturer as
those carrying the other mark (brand).
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION vs. ROYAL FERRY SERVICES,
INC.
G.R. No. 188146 / February 01, 2017
The venue for a petition for voluntary insolvency proceeding under the Insolvency
Law is the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the insolvent debtor
resides. A corporation is considered a resident of the place where its principal office
is located as stated in its Articles of Incorporation. However, when it is
uncontroverted that the insolvent corporation abandoned the old principal office, the
corporation is considered a resident of the city where its actual principal office is
currently found.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 197032 / July 26, 2017
COMMISSION
vs.
PRICE
RICHARDSON
[T]here is no sufficient evidence to substantiate SEC's allegation that individual
respondents, Connie Albert and Gordon Resnick, acted as broker, salesman or
associated person without prior registration with the Commission. The evidence at
hand merely proves that the above-named respondents were not licensed to act as
broker, salesman or associated person. No further proof, however, was presented
showing that said respondents have indeed acted as such in trading securities.
Although complainant SEC presented several confirmation of trade receipts and
documents intended to establish respondents Albert and Resnick illegal activities, the
said documents, standing alone as heretofore stated, could not warrant the
indictment of the two respondents for the offense charged.
A corporation's personality is separate and distinct from its officers, directors, and
shareholders. To be held criminally liable for the acts of a corporation, there must be
a showing that its officers, directors, and shareholders actively participated in or had
the power to prevent the wrongful act.
BRO. BERNARD OCA vs. LAURITA CUSTODIO
G.R. No. 199825 / July 26, 2017
Atty. Silvestre was indeed a member of the Board of Trustees. However, decisions of
the Board of Trustees are not subject to the control of just one (1) person. While a
/ Mercantile Law /
10
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
board member may protest, the majority of the board may overrule him or her. Thus,
it is not correct to say that a board member is empowered to cause compliance of
the trial court orders. It does not matter if Atty. Silvestre was unable to prove his
intention to comply with the orders. The burden of proving contempt is upon
complainants and there is no presumption of guilt in contempt proceedings such that
the party accused of contempt must prove that he is innocent.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FASTECH SYNERGY PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 206150 / August 09, 2017
The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is not only to enable the company to gain
a new lease on life, but also to allow creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings
when so rehabilitated. Hence, the remedy must be accorded only after a judicious
regard of all stakeholders' interests; it is not a one-sided tool that may be graciously
invoked to escape every position of distress. Thus, the remedy of rehabilitation should
be denied to corporations whose insolvency appears to be irreversible and whose sole
purpose is to delay the enforcement of any of the rights of the creditors, which is
rendered obvious by: (a) the absence of a sound and workable business
plan; (b) baseless
and
unexplained
assumptions,
targets,
and
goals;
and (c) speculative capital infusion or complete lack thereof for the execution of the
business plan, as in this case.
BELO MEDICAL GROUP, INC. vs. JOSE L. SANTOS
G.R. No. 185894 / August 30, 2017
A conflict between two (2) stockholders of a corporation does not automatically
render their dispute as intra-corporate. The nature of the controversy must also be
examined.
Applying the relationship test, this Court notes that both Belo and Santos are named
shareholders in Belo Medical Group's Articles of Incorporation and General
Information Sheet for 2007. The conflict is clearly intra-corporate as it involves two
(2) shareholders although the ownership of stocks of one stockholder is questioned.
Unless Santos is adjudged as a stranger to the corporation because he holds his
shares only in trust for Belo, then both he and Belo, based on official records, are
stockholders of the corporation. Belo Medical Group argues that the case should not
have been characterized as intra-corporate because it is not between two
shareholders as only Santos or Belo can be the rightful stockholder of the 25 shares
of stock. This may be true. But this finding can only be made after trial where
ownership of the shares of stock is decided.
/ Mercantile Law /
11
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
ARTURO C. CALUBAD vs. RICARCEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 202364 / August 30, 2017
When a corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its agent with apparent
authority to act in its behalf, it is estopped from denying its agent's apparent
authority as to innocent third parties who dealt with this agent in good faith.
The doctrine of apparent authority provides that even if no actual authority has been
conferred on an agent, his or her acts, as long as they are within his or her apparent
scope of authority, bind the principal. However, the principal's liability is limited to
third persons who are reasonably led to believe that the agent was authorized to act
for the principal due to the principal's conduct.
Apparent authority is determined by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of
the agent. Thus, it is incumbent upon Calubad to prove how Ricarcen's acts led him
to believe that Marilyn was duly authorized to represent it.
BERMUDA vs. SULPICIO LINES, INC.
GR. No. 196072 / September 20, 2017
G.R. No. 208603
An insured member may be compelled to arbitration pursuant to the Rules of the
Protection and Indemnity Club, which were incorporated in the insurance policy by
reference. Where there are multiple parties, the court must refer to arbitration the
parties covered by the agreement while proceeding with the civil action against those
who were not bound by the arbitration agreement.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. ANTONIO Z. DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 197886 / October 04, 2017
The Postmaster General may only execute contracts for procurement of services with
the Board of Directors' approval. However, this lack of authority may be ratified
through the Board of Directors' silence or acquiescence. The ratification of the
unauthorized act does not necessarily mean that the contract is valid. If the contract
is executed without complying with the laws on procurement, the erring public official
may be held administratively liable.
ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs. MANUEL ONG
G.R. No. 189524 / October 11, 2017
The consignee's claim letter that was received by the arrastre operator two (2) days
after complete delivery of the cargo constitutes substantial compliance with the time
/ Mercantile Law /
12
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
limitation for filing claims under the Gate Pass and the Management Contract.
However, the arrastre operator's liability for damage to the cargo is limited to
P5,000.00 per package in accordance with the Management Contract.
VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. vs. EMILIO G. ALFECHE
G.R. No. 209910 / November 29, 2017
An electric distribution company is a public utility presumed to have the necessary
expertise and resources to enable a safe and effective installation of its facilities.
Absent an indication of fault or negligence by other actors, it is exclusively liable for
fires and other damages caused by its haphazardly installed posts and wires.
JOSEPH HARRY WALTER POOLE-BLUNDEN vs. UNION BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 205838 / November 29, 2017
Banks are required to observe a high degree of diligence in their affairs. This
encompasses their dealings concerning properties offered as security for loans. A
bank that wrongly advertises the area of a property acquired through foreclosure
because it failed to dutifully ascertain the property's specifications is grossly negligent
as to practically be in bad faith in offering that property to prospective buyers. Any
sale made on this account is voidable for causal fraud. In actions to void such sales,
banks cannot hide under the defense that a sale was made on an as-is-where-is
basis. As-is-where-is stipulations can only encompass physical features that are
readily perceptible by an ordinary person possessing no specialized skills.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs. NORDEC PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 196116 / April 18, 2018
A distribution utility is mandated to strictly comply with the legal requisites before
disconnecting an electric supply due to the serious consequences this disconnection
may have on the consumer.
The Ridjo doctrine simply states that the public utility has the imperative duty to
make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure
that they do not malfunction. Its failure to discover the defect, if any, considering the
length of time, amounts to inexcusable negligence; its failure to make the necessary
repairs and replace the defective electric meter installed within the consumer's
premises limits the latter's liability.
The use of the words "defect" and "defective" in the above-cited case does not restrict
the application of the doctrine to cases of "mechanical defects" in the installed electric
/ Mercantile Law /
13
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
meters. A more plausible interpretation is to apply the rule on negligence whether
the defect is inherent, intentional or unintentional, which therefore covers tampering,
mechanical defects and mistakes in the computation of the consumers' billing.
CITIGROUP, INC. vs. CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK, INC.
G.R. No. 205409 / June 13, 2018
In one case, the Court held that the dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion and
deception, thus constituting infringement. If the competing trademark contains the
main, essential, and dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is
likely to result, infringement occurs. Exact duplication or imitation is not required.
The question is whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or
mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive consumers.
In contrast, the holistic test entails a consideration of the entirety of the marks as
applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing
similarity. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant
words but also on the other features appearing on both marks in order that the
observer may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other.
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS
G.R. No. 200678 / June 04, 2018
A bank which has been ordered closed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Bangko
Sentral) is placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation. As a consequence of the receivership, the closed bank may sue and be
sued only through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any
action filed by the closed bank without its receiver may be dismissed.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION vs. LUWALHATI R. ANTONINO
G.R. No. 199455 / June 27, 2018
The duty of common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in shipping goods
does not terminate until delivery to the consignee or to the specific person authorized
to receive the shipped goods. Failure to deliver to the person authorized to receive
the goods is tantamount to loss of the goods, thereby engendering the common
carrier's liability for loss. Ambiguities in contracts of carriage, which are contracts of
adhesion, must be interpreted against the common carrier that prepared these
contracts.
/ Mercantile Law /
14
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
THE INSULAR ASSURANCE CO., LTD. vs. THE HEIRS OF JOSE H. ALVAREZ
G.R. No. 207526 / October 03, 2018
G.R. No. 210156 / October 03, 2018
The Insurance Code dispenses with proof of fraudulent intent in cases of rescission
due to concealment, but not so in cases of rescission due to false representations.
When an abundance of available documentary evidence can be referenced to
demonstrate a design to defraud, presenting a singular document with an erroneous
entry does not qualify as clear and convincing proof of fraudulent intent. Neither does
belatedly invoking just one other document, which was not even authored by the
alleged miscreant.
CEZAR YATCO REAL ESTATE SERVICES,
ASSOCIATION, INC.
G.R. No. 211780 / November 21, 2018
INC.
vs.
BEL-AIR
VILLAGE
Section 47 (4) of the Corporation Code categorically states that private corporations
may provide in their by-laws for the 'form of proxies of stockholders and members
and the manner of voting them.' Consistent therewith, Section 89 of the same Code
provides: '[u]nless otherwise provided by the articles of incorporation or by-laws, a
member may vote by proxy in accordance with the provisions of the Code.' In
addition, Section 30 of Resolution No. 770 of the HLURB Board of Commissioners
(Framework for Governance of Homeowners Associations) states that (P)roxies shall
be in writing and signed by the member. . . . There is no requirement that the same
be notarized. Thus, the recognized rule and practice on proxy form is summarized as
follows . . . the formalities of a proxy may be provided for in the [b]y-[l]aws. In the
absence of any provision in the [b]y-laws, the proxy need not comply with the
minimum requirements provided for in Section 58 . . . Hence the by-laws of BAVA is
controlling insofar as execution of proxies is concerned . . . the entire [b]y-laws of
BAVA readily reveals that nowhere therein is it required that the proxy forms be in
any particular form, much less be in a public document or through a special power of
attorney."
SPOUSES RAINIER JOSE M. YULO vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
G.R. No. 217044 / January 16, 2019
When issuing a pre-screened or pre-approved credit card, the credit card provider
must prove that its client read and consented to the terms and conditions governing
the credit card's use. Failure to prove consent means that the client cannot be bound
by the provisions of the terms and conditions, despite admitted use of the credit card.
/ Mercantile Law /
15
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
METRO BOTTLED WATER CORPORATION vs. ANDRADA CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.
G.R. No. 202430 / March 06, 2019
Generally, judicial review of arbitral awards is permitted only on very narrow grounds.
Republic Act No. 876, or the Arbitration Law, does not allow an arbitral award to be
revisited without a showing of specified conditions, which must be proven
affirmatively by the party seeking its review. The Special Rules of Court on Alternative
Dispute Resolution, implementing the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004, mandate that arbitral awards will not be vacated "merely on the ground that
the arbitral tribunal committed errors of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, as the
court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitral tribunal." Parties are even
"precluded from filing an appeal or a petition for certiorari questioning the merits of
an arbitral award."
ADELAIDO ORIONDO vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 211293 / June 04, 2019
A corporation, whether with or without an original charter, is under the audit
jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit so long as the government owns or has
controlling interest in it.
/ Mercantile Law /
16
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
Case Digests for Bar Exams
/ Mercantile Law /
17