J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0019: ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P. ORTANEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTANEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR ORTANEZ, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS  JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTANEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 184251, 09 MARCH 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTES; ELECTION OF BOARD; PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHTS) (BRIEF TITLE: ORTANEZ ESTATE VS. JOSE C. LEE ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“As respondents correctly pointed out, to give premium to petitioners’ story that the quorum in the annual stockholders’ meeting should be based on 5,000 shares is to grossly violate and disregard corporate acts and powers done by the corporation, which were validly voted upon by the stockholders including the Estate, through its then Special Administrators Rafael Ortafiez and Jose Ortafiez, from 1983 to 1988. Furthermore, the same increases of capital stock to 10,000 were also voted upon and approved after due notice to petitioners Divina Ortafiez-Enderes, Ligaya Novicio and Cesar Ortafiez who were present/allowed to be present, during the stockholders’ meetings from 1983 to 1988.”

…………………………….

 “Clearly, the core issue to be resolved in the present case is simply on whether respondents were validly elected as Board of Directors during the annual stockholders’ meeting of Phi linter life held on 15 March 2006. We agree with the courts below that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the respondents were duly elected as directors/officers of Philinterlife during the aforesaid annual stockholders’ meeting. Petitioners cannot, in the instant election contest case, question the increases in the capital stocks of the corporation.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0019-ORTANEZ 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0018: TRAVEL & TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED VS. ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ and VIRGINIA MUNOZ (GR. No. 199282, 14 MARCH 2016, PERALTA, J) (SUBJECT/S: DAMAGES RESULTING FROM CAR ACCIDENT) (BRIEF TITLE: TRAVEL AND TOURS VS. ALFREDO CRUS JR. ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, dated December 28, 2011, of petitioner Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. is DENIED. However, the Decision dated May 16, 2011 of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED . . .  (PLEASE READ THE CONTINUATION IN THE DECISION).

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CASES ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS?

THE SUPREME COURT IS LIMITED TO THE REVIEW OF ERRORS OF LAW.

REASON: BECAUSE THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE DEEMED CONCLUSIVE.

CONSEQUENCE: SUPREME COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANALYZE AND WEIGH ALL OVER AGAIN THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER COURTS.

ARE  THERE  EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE?

YES.

THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 ( 1) WHEN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT ARE CONTRADICTORY;

(2) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION, SURMISES, OR CONJECTURES;

(3) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM ITS FINDINGS OF FACT IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD, OR IMPOSSIBLE;

( 4) WHEN THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS;

(5) WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, GOES BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE, -AND SUCH FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

(6) WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS PREMISED ON A · MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

(7) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILS TO NOTICE CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WILL JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION;

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE THEMSELVES ·CONFLICTING;

(9) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED; AND

(10) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ·ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE BUT SUCH FINDINGS ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.

THE BUS VEERED AWAY FROM ITS USUAL ROUTE TO AVOID TRAFFIC. DID IT VIOLATE ITS FRANCHISE?

NO. VEERING AWAY IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING OUT OF LINE.

ITS FRANCHISE SPECIFIED ITS ROUTE AS: from Manila-Ilocos Norte/Cagayan-Manila. thus, the bus is allowed to traverse any point between Manila-Ilacos Norte/Cagayan-Manila. THE BUS WAS WELL WITHIN THIS ROUTE.

HOW ABOUT THE PASSENGER JEEPNEY?

IT WAS TRAVERSING OUTSIDE ITS ALLOWED ROUTE.

IS THIS A CASE OF PARI DELICTO?

NO.

SINCE THIS IS NOT A CASE OF  PARI DELICTO, THEN WHAT PROVISION OF LAW APPLIES?

IT WOULD SEEM THAT  ARTICLE  2185 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE IS· APPLICABLE WHERE IT PROVIDES THAT:

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person dfiving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

BUT SUCH PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A PRESUMPTION WHICH CAN BE OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE.

BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION IS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER OF PETITIONER’S BUS.

WHY?

BECAUSE THE JEEPNEY WAS BUMPED AT THE LEFT REAR PORTION. BASE ON PAST SC RULING DRIVERS OF VEHICLES WHO BUMP THE REAR· OF ANOTHER VEHICLE ARE PRESUMED TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, UNLESS CONTRADICTED BY OTHER EVIDENCE.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRESUMPTION?

THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE HAS FULL CONTROL OF THE SITUATION AS HE IS IN A POSITION TO OBSERVE THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HIM.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0018-TRAVEL AND TOURS

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.