Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
deceased.
Company
RENATO
D.
TAYAG, ancillary
administrator-appellee,
vs.BENGUET
of
New
York,
but
by
the
Philippine
CONSOLIDATED,
INC., oppositor-
appellant.
domiciliary
administrator,
the
County
Trust
from
legal
doctrines
of
weight
and
significance.
Lazaro
Consolidated,
certificates
this Court."1
Inc.,
(2)
orders
said
A.
Marquez
was
appointed
ancillary
principles
and
supported
by
the
the ancillary
contingent
frustration
brought
about
by
the
stock
certificates
cannot
be
declared
or
emasculated
domiciliary
by
the
administrator
wilful
in
conduct
refusing
to
of
the
accord
with
the
power
of
the
appellee
ancillary
beyond
was
granted,"
the
corollary
being
"that
an
question.
For
appellant
is
Philippine
minded.
administration
is
termed
the
ancillary
of
administration
does
not ex
proprio
in
which
it
is
granted.
Hence,
an
in
the
[Philippines].
The
ancillary
burden
of
persuasion
of
precisely
today
in
the
possession
of
the
domiciliary
present,
stocks
of
noting
"the
quasi
in
the
or
Philippines,
the
there
ancillary
was
owned
jurist,
the
to
corporation
eminent
by
decedent
appellant
that
administrator
nothing
unreasonable
further
refinement
judicial
this
persuasion.
order
particular
being
in
the
catholicity
disregarded
alleged
error
with
does
of
its
apparent
not
carry
ownership [thereof]."15
Benguet
corporate theory.
Consolidated,
Inc.
is
fraught
with
entitled
to
the
possession
of
the
stock
followed.
the
in contemplation of law."18
judiciary
must
yield
deference,
when
There
is
thus
rejection
of
previously
seeking
so.
granted
its
petition
reconsideration
of
to
consider
such
order,
the
the
was
denied,
and
the
Administrator appealed.
of
correspondence
requires.
effect,
would
discretion
deprive
and
our
render
tribunals
them
mere
of
judicial
legal
doctrines
For
and
with
what
through
the
distinguished
a
sense
appealed
of
by
its
realism
order,
the
subordinate
WHEREFORE, the appealed order of the Honorable
determinations
made
by
foreign
governmental
within
our
jurisdiction,
the
force
and
proposition
to
which
appellant
Benguet
attest
to
the
necessity
OF
THE
vs.THE
CITY
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
OF
MANILA,
THE
MAYOR
OF
of
negative
Association of the Philippines, Inc., allegedly a nonstock corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the Philippines, whose 35 members are
licensed owner and operators in the City of Manila, of
Five-Ball-Flipper-Action-Pinball machines (also known
as slot machines), filed a complaint in the Court of
First Instance of said City praying that a preliminary
injunction be issued to restrain the City Mayor and
the City Treasurer from enforcing Ordinance No. 3628
passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on March 19,
HUNDRED
SEVENTY
HUNDRED
THREE
SEVENTY
AND
FOUR
SEVEN
ORDINANCE
maintenance
of
failing
pinball
under
machines,
the
category
not
otherwise
of
Numbered
One
thousand
six
read as follows:
approval.
Enacted,
March
19,
1954.
for
the
including
for
the
other
use
kinds
of
of
the
public
machines
ordinance
(No.
3347)enforced
before
the
or
same.
to
subsequently
lift
the
filed
on
Preliminary
April
21,
Injunction
1954,
On May
7,
1954,
plaintiff
was
served
with
was
wherein
3.
In
finding
Ordinance
No.
3628
valid
and
be indubitable.
By
arriving
at
conclusion
upholding
the
Philippines.
Subsequent
inquires
from
the
constitute
franchise
and
their
motion
to
dismiss
and
argued
Wherefore,
the
order
appealed
from
is
hereby
3)
whether the defendant is legally authorized to
pierce the veil of corporate fiction and interpose the
same as a defense in an accion publiciana;
4)
whether the defendants are truly builders in
good faith, entitled to occupy the questioned
premises;
5)
whether plaintiff is entitled to damages and
reasonable compensation for the use of the
questioned premises;
6)
whether the defendants are entitled to their
counterclaim to recover moral and exemplary
damages as well as attorney's fees in the two cases;
7)
whether the presence and occupancy by the
defendants on the premises in questioned (sic)
hampers, deters or impairs plaintiff's operation of
Hidden Valley Springs Resort; and
8)
whether or not a unilateral and sudden
withdrawal of plaintiffs tolerance allowing defendants'
occupancy of the premises in questioned (sic) is
unjust enrichment. (Original Records, 486)
Upon motion of the plaintiff respondent corporation,
Presiding Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero of Branch 34
issued an Order dated April 25, 1986 inhibiting
himself from further trying the case. The cases were
re-raffled to Branch 37 presided by Judge Odilon
Bautista. Judge Bautista continued the hearing of the
cases.
For failure of the petitioners (defendants below) and
their counsel to attend the October 22, 1986 hearing
despite notice, and upon motion of the respondent
corporation, the court issued on the same day,
October 22, 1986, an Order considering the cases
submitted for decision. At this stage of the
proceedings, the petitioners had not yet presented
their evidence while the respondent corporation had
completed the presentation of its evidence.
The evidence of the respondent corporation upon
which the lower court based its decision is as follows:
To support the complaints, the plaintiff offered the
testimonies of Maria Milagros Roxas and that of
Victoria Roxas Villarta as well as Exhibits "A" to "M-3".
The evidence of the plaintiff established the following:
that the plaintiff, Heirs of Eugenia V Roxas,
Incorporated, was incorporated on December 4, 1962
(Exh. "C") with the primary purpose of engaging in
agriculture to develop the properties inherited from
Eugenia V. Roxas and that of y Eufrocino Roxas; that
the Articles of Incorporation of the plaintiff, in 1971,
was amended to allow it to engage in the resort
business (Exh.
"C-1"); that the incorporators as original members of
the board of directors of the plaintiff were all
members of the same family, with Eufrocino Roxas
having the biggest share; that accordingly, the
plaintiff put up a resort known as Hidden Valley
Springs Resort on a portion of its land located at Bo.
Limao, Calauan, Laguna, and covered by TCT No.
32639 (Exhs. "A" and "A-l"); that improvements were
introduced in the resort by the plaintiff and among
them were cottages, houses or buildings, swimming
pools, tennis court, restaurant and open pavilions;
that the house near the Balugbugan Pool (Exh. "B-l")
being occupied by Rebecca B. Roxas was originally
intended as staff house but later used as the
residence of Eriberto Roxas, deceased husband of the
defendant Rebecca Boyer-Roxas and father of
Guillermo Roxas; that this house presently being
occupied by Rebecca B. Roxas was built from
corporate funds; that the construction of the
unfinished house (Exh. "B-2") was started by the
defendant Rebecca Boyer-Roxas and her husband
Eriberto Roxas; that the third building (Exh. "B-3")
ORDER
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
R E S O L U T I O N No. 83-12
of
the
Bataan
Economic
Zone, Petitioner,
vs.
COALBRINE INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC.
and SHEILA F. NERI, Respondents.
Dismiss.
The
Export
predecessor
Processing
of
the
Zone
Authority
Philippine
Economic
(EPZA),
Zone
Zone,
Mariveles,
Bataan.
Dante
from taking over the hotel and country club and from
disconnecting the water and electric services to the
hotel. The complaint is pending with Branch 17 of the
RTC of Manila.
M.
Economic Zone.
for
twenty-five
(25)
years,
which
and
repeated
non-performance
of
its
consequently,
operations;
respondent
paralyzed
Neri
the
hotel's
undertook
the
it.
with
were
prayer
for
the
issuance
of
temporary
reconnected.
Respondents
prayed
for
the
cutting
Orders,
or disconnecting
the
reconnected
water
reiterating
the
grounds
raised
by
Quindoza,
through
the
Solicitor
lack of merit.
grounds:
review
on certiorari raising
the
lone
issue
of
In their
Comment,
respondents
argue
that
the
against defendant;
unauthorized.
petitioner
had
already
filed
an
answer
to
the
September
24,
2002,
the
RTC
issued
an
Administrator
Quindoza
Reconsideration,
which
filed
the
RTC
Motion
denied
in
for
its
Economic
as
Zone
Zone,
Administrator
filed
with
capacity
the
of
CA
the
Bataan
petition
Notably,
respondent
verification/certification
Neri
as
one
signed
of
the
the
plaintiffs.
arguments, to wit:
UNAUTHORIZED.
to
the
shopping
complaint
filed
by
We agree.
shopping reads:
xxxx
Coalbrine.
served.13
shopping
signed
by
person
on
behalf
of
non-forum shopping.
we
did
so
on
the
basis
of
special
who
signed
the
certification
was
duly
which
was
being
leased
by
respondent
authorized.
Banking
Mondragon
show
that
certification
its
Corporation
bank
against
manager
v.
who
non-forum
signed
shopping
the
was
the
pre-existing
status
of
the
bank
Investments
Merit
the
secretary
Philippines,18 where
the
Corporation
v.
complaint
before
to
file
the
action,
and
to
authorize
persuasive.
Notably,
Administrator
Quindoza
was
sued
for
21
in
CA-G.R.
SP
No
74667
SO ORDERED.
INC., respondents.
Manila, respondents.
practices
and
serious
irregularities"
allegedly
committed as follows:
but
rather
the
company
known
as
Pasay City.
We hold that respondent's actuation in enforcing a
In his Comments, respondent Dalisay explained that
judgment
That
labor
case
advised
him
to
serve
notice
of
the
against
title
complainant
of
the
case
who
is
not
specifically
the
names
The
tenor
implementing
of
the
writ
is
NLRC
clear
judgment
enough.
and
It
the
directed
them.
Upon
dated
May
29,
1986
recommending
the
imposing
Court
the
appropriate
corrective
separate entities.3
No.
a
12
which
court
writ
restrains
outside
sheriff
his
from
territorial
SO ORDERED.