Case
Narra Nickel Mining and Dev.
Corp. vs. Redmont
Consolidated Mines, G.R. No.
195580, Apr. 21, 2014
Shrimp Specialists, Inc., vs. Fuji-
Triumph Agri-Ind’l Corp., G.R.
No. 168756, Dec. 7, 2009
Edsa Shangri-La Hotel and
Resort, Inc. v. BF Corp., G.R. No.
145842, June 27, 2008
Pantranco Employees Asso.
(PEA-PTGWO) v. NLRC, G.R. No.
170689, March 17, 2009
Manuel C. Espiritu, Jr., et al. vs.
Petron Corp., et al., G.R. No.
170891, Nov. 24, 2009
Queensland-Tokyo
Commodities, Inc., et al. vs.
Thomas George, G.R. No.
172727, Sept. 8, 2010
Eric Godfrey Stanley Livesey vs.
Binswanger Phils., Inc., et. al.,
G.R. No. 177493, Mar. 19, 2014
Dispositive Portion
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The
assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated October 1, 2010 and
Resolution dated February 15, 2011 are hereby AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, we DENY both petitions. We AFFIRM the Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 28 June 2005 and the Resolution dated 26
January 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 57420.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 145842 is DISMISSED, while the
petition in G.R. No. 145873 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the appealed
Decision dated November 12, 1999 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 57399
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the petitioner in G.R. No.
145873, Cynthia Roxas-del Castillo, is absolved from any liability
decreed in the RTC Decision dated September 23, 1996 in Civil Case
No. 63435, as affirmed by the CA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are hereby DENIED
for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 87711 dated October 17, 2005 as well
as its Resolution dated January 6, 2006, the Resolutions of the
Secretary of Justice dated March 11, 2004 and August 31, 2004, and
the Order of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, Region V,
dated February 19, 2003. The Court REINSTATES the Resolution of the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon in I.S. 2001-9231
(inadvertently referred in the Resolution itself as I.S. 2001-9234),
dated February 26, 2002. The names of petitioners Manuel C. Espiritu,
Jr., Freida F. Espititu, Carlo F. Espiritu, Rafael F. Espiritu, Rolando M.
Mirabuna, Hermilyn A. Mirabuna, Kim Roland A. Mirabuna, Kaye Ann
A. Mirabuna, Ken Ryan A. Mirabuna, Juanito P. De Castro, Geronima
A. Almonite and Manuel C. Dee are ORDERED excluded from the
charge.
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58741 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
that the awards for moral and exemplary damages are reduced to
P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition.
The decision dated August 18, 2006 and the Resolution dated March
29, 2007 of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. Binswanger
Philippines, Inc. and Keith Elliot (its President and CEO) are declared
jointly and severally liable for the second and third installments of
CBB’s liability to Eric Godfrey Stanley Livesey under the compromise
agreement dated October 14, 2002. Let the case record be remanded
to the National Labor Relations Commission for execution of this
Decision.
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern1
 Gerardo Lanuza, Jr., et. al. vs.
BF Corporation, et. al, G.R. No.
174938, October 1, 2014
Irene Martel Francisco vs.
Numeriano Mallen, Jr., G.R. No.
173169 Sept. 22, 2010
Pacific Rehouse Corp. vs. Court
of Appeals, et. al. G.R. No.
199687, Mar. 24, 2014
Heirs of Fe Tan Uy , et. al. vs.
Int’l Exchange Bank, et. al., G.R.
No. 166282, Feb. 13, 2013
PNB vs. Hydro Resources
Contractors Corp., G.R. No.
167530, Mar. 13, 2013
Kukan Int’l Corp. vs. Hon. Amor
Reyes, et. al. G.R. No. 182729,
Sept. 29, 2010
Timoteo Sarona vs. NLRC,
Royale Security Agency, et al.,
G.R. No. 185280, Jan. 18, 2012
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' decision of
May 11, 2006 and resolution of October 5, 2006 are AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We MODIFY the Court of
Appeals Decision, dated 16 September 2005, in CA-G.R. SP No. 72115
by holding petitioner Irene Martel Francisco not liable for the
monetary awards specified in the reinstated Labor Arbiters Decision,
dated 25 August 1999, in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-05608-98.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 199687 is hereby DISMISSED for
having been rendered moot and academic. The petition in G.R. No.
201537, meanwhile, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently,
the Decision dated April 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 120979 is AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. The August 16,
2004 Decision and the December 2, 2004 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69817, are hereby MODIFIED. Fe Tan Uy is
released from any liability arising from the debts incurred by Hammer
from iBank. Hammer Garments Corporation, Manuel Chua Uy Po
Tiong and Goldkey Development Corporation are jointly and severally
liable to pay International Exchange Bank the sum of P13,420,177.62
representing the unpaid loan obligation of Hammer as of December
12, 1997 plus interest. No costs.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby GRANTED. The complaint as
against Development Bank of the Philippines, the Philippine National
Bank, and the Asset Privatization Trust, now the Privatization and
Management Office, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Asset
Privatization Trust, now the Privatization and Management Office, as
trustee of Nonoc Mining and Industrial Corporation, now the Philnico
Processing Corporation, is DIRECTED to ensure compliance by the
Nonoc Mining and Industrial Corporation, now the Philnico Processing
Corporation, with this Decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The CA’s January 23,
2008 Decision and April 16, 2008 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 100152
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The levy placed upon the
personal properties of Kukan International Corporation is hereby
ordered lifted and the personal properties ordered returned to Kukan
International Corporation. The RTC of Manila, Branch 21 is hereby
directed to execute the RTC Decision dated November 28, 2002
against Kukan, Inc. with reasonable dispatch.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED.
We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the CA’s May 29, 2008 Decision in C.A.-
G.R. SP No. 02127 and order the respondents to pay the petitioner
the following minus the amount of (P23,521.67) paid to the petitioner
in satisfaction of the NLRC’s November 30, 2005 Decision in NLRC
Case No. V-000355-05:
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern2

Vivian T. Ramirez, et al. vs. Mar
Fishing Co., Inc,. et al., G.R. No.
168208 June 13, 2012
China Banking Corporation vs.
Dyne-Sem Electronics Corp.
G.R. No. 149237, June 11, 2006
Hyatt Elevators Inc. vs. Goldstar
Elevators. Phils., G.R. No.
161026, Oct. 24, 2005
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs.
CA, 301SCRA 589, G.R. No.
128690. Jan. 21, 1999
Advance Paper Corp, et.al., vs.
Arma Traders Corp, et. al. G.R.
No.176897, Dec. 11, 2013
a) full backwages and other benefits computed from October 1, 2003
(the date Royale illegally dismissed the petitioner) until the finality of
this decision;
b) separation pay computed from April 1976 until the finality of this
decision at the rate of one month pay per year of service;
c) ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees based on the total amount of the
awards under (a) and (b) above;
d) moral damages of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00); and
e) exemplary damages of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00).
This case is REMANDED to the labor arbiter for computation of the
separation pay, backwages, and other monetary awards due the
petitioner.
IN VIEW THEREOF, the assailed 19 March 2004 and 12 May 2005
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP NO. 82651 are
AFFIRMED. Hence, the 04 July 2005 Petition for Review filed by
petitioners is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Court of
Appeals decision and resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 40672 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision
and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44125 is hereby
REVERSED except as to unappealed award of attorneys fees in favor
of VIVA Productions, Inc.
No pronouncement as to costs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition. The
decision dated March 31, 2006 and the resolution dated March 7,
2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71499 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court decision in Civil Case No. 94-
72526 dated June 18, 2001 is REINSTATED. No costs.
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern3

Donnina C. Halley vs. Printwell,
Inc., G.R. No. 157549, May 30,
2011
Wilson P. Gamboa vs. Finance
Sec. Margarito B. Teves, et. al.,
G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011
Valle Verde Country Club, Inc.
vs. Victor Africa G.R. No.
151969, Sept. 4, 2009
Filipinas Port Services vs. Go
G.R. No. 161886, March 16,
2007
Matling Ind’l and Commercial
Corp., et. al. Ricardo R. Coros,
G.R. No. 157802 Oct. 13, 2010
MARC II Marketing, Inc. vs.
Alfredo M. Joson G.R. No.
171993, Dec. 12, 2011
ACCORDINGLY, we deny the petition for review on certiorari;and
affirm with modification the decision promulgated on August 14,
2002by ordering the petitionerto pay to Printwell, Inc. the sum of
P262,500.00, plus interest of 12% per annum to be computed from
February 8, 1990 until full payment.
The petitioner shall paycost of suit in this appeal.
WHEREFORE, we PARTLY GRANT the petition and rule that the term
capital in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to
shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, and thus in
the present case only to common shares, and not to the total
outstanding capital stock (common and non-voting preferred shares).
Respondent Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission
is DIRECTED to apply this definition of the term capital in determining
the extent of allowable foreign ownership in respondent Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company, and if there is a violation of
Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, to impose the appropriate
sanctions under the law.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitioners petition for review on
certiorari, and AFFIRM the partial decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 152, Manila, promulgated on January 23, 2002, in Civil Case
No. 68726. Costs against the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of
the CA is AFFIRMED in all respects.
No pronouncement as to costs.
WHEREFORE, we deny the petition for review on certiorari, and affirm
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision and Resolution
dated 20 June 2005 and 7 March 2006, respectively, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76624 are hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION finding respondents dismissal from employment
legal but without proper observance of due process. Accordingly,
petitioner corporation, jointly and solidarily liable with petitioner
Lucila, is hereby ordered to pay respondent the following; (1)
separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least one-half
month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, to be
computed from the commencement of employment until
termination; and (2) nominal damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
This Court, however, finds it proper to still remand the records to the
Labor Arbiter to conduct further proceedings for the sole purpose of
determining the compensation that respondent was actually receiving
during the period that he was the General Manager of petitioner
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern4

Leslie Okol vs. Slimmers World
International, et al., G.R. No.
160146, December 11, 2009
Gloria V. Gomez vs. PNOC Dev.
and Mngt. Corp. (PDMC), G.R.
No. 174044, Nov. 27, 2009
Rodolfo Laborte, et al. v.
Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers’
Coop., et al., G.R. No. 183860,
Jan. 15, 2014
MAM Realty Development
Corporation v. NLRC, 314 Phil.
838 (1995)
Harpoon Marine Services, Inc.,
et al. v. Fernan H. Francisco,
G.R. No. 167751, March 2, 2011
SPI Technologies, Inc., et al. v.
Victoria K. Mapua, G.R. No.
199022, April 7, 2014
corporation for the proper computation of his separation pay.
Costs against petitioners.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 18 October 2002
Decision and 22 September 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 69893. This Decision is without prejudice to
petitioner Leslie Okols taking recourse to and seeking relief through
the appropriate remedy in the proper forum.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, REVERSES and SETS
ASIDE the decision dated May 19, 2006 and the resolution dated
August 15, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 88819,
and REINSTATES the resolution dated November 22, 2002 of the
National Labor Relations Commissions Third Division in NLRC NCR 30-
12-00856-99. Let the records of this case be REMANDED to the
arbitration branch of origin for the conduct of further proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the petit10n is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 29,
2008 and the Resolution dated July 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
are VACATED. The Amended Complaint and the Complaint-in-
Intervention filed by the Respondents in the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28, Sta. Cruz, Laguna in Civil Case No. SC-3150 are DISMISSED.
WHEREFORE, the order of 21 March 1994 is MODIFIED. The case is
REMANDED to the NLRC for a re-computation of private respondent's
monetary awards, which, conformably with this opinion, shall be paid
solely by petitioner MAM Realty Development Corporation. No
special pronouncement on costs.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January
26, 2005 and Resolution dated April 12, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 79630 finding respondent Fernan H. Francisco to have been
illegally dismissed and awarding him backwages and separation pay
are AFFIRMED. The award of commissions in his favor is,
however, DELETED. Petitioner Jose Lido T. Rosit is ABSOLVED from the
liability adjudged against co-petitioner Harpoon Marine Services,
Incorporated.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 28, 2009 and Resolution
dated January 18, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No.
107879 are hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. Moral and exemplary damages is hereby reduced to ₱50,000.00
each; and
2. Attorney's fees shall be computed at ten percent (10%) of the
aggregate monetary award.
The monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the time of respondent Victoria K. Mapua's
illegal dismissal until finality of this Decision, and twelve percent
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern5

Mirant [Phils.] Corp., et al. v.
Joselito A. Caro,G.R. No.
181490, April 23, 2014
Joselito Musni Puno vs. Puno
Enterprises, Inc., et. al., G.R.
No. 177066, Sept. 11, 2009
David C. Lao and Jose C. Lao vs.
Dionisio C. Lao, G.R. No.
170585, October 6, 2008
Loyola Grand Villas
Homeowners Asso. Inc. vs. CA,
et. al., G.R. No. 117188, Aug. 7,
1997
Petronilo J. Barayuga vs.
Adventist Univ. of the Phils.,
G.R. No. 168008, Aug. 17, 2011
Valley Golf & Country Club, Inc.,
Rosa O. Vda. De Caram, G.R.
No. 158805, April 16, 2009
Juanito Ang, et. al. vs. Sps.
Roberto and Rachel Ang, G.R.
No. 201675, June 19, 2013
Legaspi Towers 300, Inc., et. al. Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87684, dated July 22, 2005, and its
vs. Amelia P. Muer, et. al., G.R. Resolution dated November 24, 2005 are AFFIRMED.
No. 170783, June 18, 2012
Maj. Stockholders of Ruby Ind’l.
Corp. vs. Miguel Lim, et. al. ,
G.R. No. 165887, June 6, 2011
(12%) legal interest thereafter until fully paid.
Petitioner SPI Technologies, Inc. shall be liable for the foregoing
awards.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
assailed Decision dated June 26, 2007 and the Resolution dated
January 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 96153 are AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that only petitioner corporation is found GUILTY of
the illegal dismissal of respondent Joselito A. Caro. Petitioner Edgardo
A. Bautista is not held personally liable as then President of petitioner
corporation at the time of the illegal dismissal.
No pronouncement as to costs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court
of Appeals Decision dated October 11, 2006 and Resolution dated
March 6, 2007 are AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed Amended
Decision AFFIRMED IN FULL.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby
DENIED and the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals
AFFIRMED. This Decision is immediately executory. Costs against
petitioner.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari for lack of
merit, and hereby DISMISS SEC Case No. 028-03 entitled Dr. Petronilo
Barayuga v. Nelson D. Dayson, et al.
The petitioner shall pay the cost of suit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 20 September
2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals-Cebu in CA-G.R. SP No. 05546.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Costs against petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petitions for review on certiorari are DENIED. The
Decision dated May 26, 2004 and Resolution dated November 4, 2004 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73195 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the Securities and
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern6

Simny G. Guy, et. al. vs. The
Hon. Ofelia C. Calo, G.R. No.
189486, Sept. 5, 2012
Fil-Estate Gold and Dev. Inc., et
al. v. Vertex Sales and Trading,
Inc., G.R. No. 202079, June 10,
2013
Calatagan Golf Club, Inc. vs.
Sixto Clemente, JR., G.R. No.
16544, April 16, 2009
Paul Lee Tan, et. al. vs. Paul
Sycip, et. al., August 17, 2006
Philip Turner, et. al. vs. Lorenzo
Shipping Corp., G.R. No.
157479, Nov.24, 2010
Ma. Belen Flordeliza Ang-
Abaya, et. al. vs. Eduardo G.
Ang, G.R. No. 178511, Dec. 4,
200
Aderito Z. Yujuico , et. al. vs.
Exchange Commission is hereby ordered to TRANSFER SEC Case No. 2556
to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which is hereby DIRECTED to
supervise the liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation under the
provisions of R.A. No. 10142.
With costs against the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 189486
and 189699 are hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 27 May 2009 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G .R. SP No. 106405 and its Resolution
dated 03 September 2009 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Court DECLARES that SEC-MC08-112 now pending before the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 211, Mandaluyong City, is a nuisance suit and
hereby ORDERS it to IMMEDIATELY DISMISS the same for reasons
discussed herein.
WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition. The decision dated
February 22, 2012 and the resolution dated May 31, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89296 are AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that Fil-Estate Land, Inc. is ABSOLVED from any
liability.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The
remaining members of the board of trustees of Grace Christian High
School (GCHS) may convene and fill up the vacancies in the board, in
accordance with this Decision. No pronouncement as to costs in this
instance.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of
merit.
We affirm the decision promulgated on March 4, 2003 in C.A.-
G.R. SP No. 74156 entitled Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Hon.
Artemio S. Tipon, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 46 of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, et al.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The
March 6, 2007 Decision and June 19, 2007 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94708 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
July 26, 2005 and March 29, 2006 Resolutions of the Secretary of
Justice directing the withdrawal of the information filed against
petitioners for violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code are
accordingly REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petlt10n is hereby DENIED.
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern7
Cezar T. Quiambao et. al., G.R.
No. 180416, June 2, 2014
Bank of Commerce v. Radio
Phils. Network, Inc., et al.,G.R.
No. 195615, Apr. 21, 2014
Mindanao Savings and Loan
Asso., vs. Edward Willkom, et.
al, G.R. No. 178618 Oct. 11,
2010
Metrobank vs. The Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills
Corp., et al., G.R. No. 176959,
Sept. 8, 2010
Bank of Commerce v. Radio
Philippines Network, Inc., et
al.,G.R. No. 195615, April 21,
2014
Vitaliano N. Aguirre II , et. al. vs.
FQB+, Inc., et. al., G.R. No.
170770, Jan. 9, 2013
The Orders dated 4 June 2007 and 5 November 2007 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 154, of Pasig City in S.C.A. No. 3047, insofar as said
orders effectively dismissed Criminal Case No. 89724 pending before
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, of Pasig City, are hereby
AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of
November 26, 2010 and the Resolution of February 9, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals both in CA-G.R. SP 116704 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the assailed Orders dated February 19, 2010 and
August 18, 2010, the Alias Writ of Execution dated March 9, 2010, all
issued by the Regional Trial Court and all orders, notices of
garnishment/levy, or notices of sale and any other action emanating
from the Orders dated February 19, 2010 and August 18, 2010 in Civil
Case Q-89-3580 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued by this Court on April 13, 2011 is hereby
made PERMANENT.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court
of Appeals Decision dated March 21, 2007 and Resolution dated June
1, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 58337 are AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 7, 2006 and the
Resolution dated March 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 76642 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of
November 26, 2010 and the Resolution of February 9, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals both in CA-G.R. SP 116704 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the assailed Orders dated February 19, 2010 and
August 18, 2010, the Alias Writ of Execution dated March 9, 2010, all
issued by the Regional Trial Court and all orders, notices of
garnishment/levy, or notices of sale and any other action emanating
from the Orders dated February 19, 2010 and August 18, 2010 in Civil
Case Q-89-3580 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued by this Court on April 13, 2011 is hereby
made PERMANENT.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review
on Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed June 29, 2005
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87293, as well as its
December 16, 2005 Resolution, are ANNULLED with respect to their
dismissal of SEC Case No. 04-111077 on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The said case is ordered REINSTATED before Branch 24 of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The rest of the assailed issuances
are AFFIRMED.
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern8

Paramount Insurance Corp. vs.
A.C. Ordonez Corp., et. al., G.R.
No. 175109, August 6, 2008
Alabang Dev. Corp. v. Alabang
Hills Village Asso. et. al., G.R.
No. 187456, June 2, 2014
Steelcase, Inc. vs. Design
International Selections,
Inc.,G.R. No. 171995 April 18,
2012
Global Business Holdings, Inc. v.
Surecomp Software, B.V., G.R.
No. 173463, Oct. 13, 2010
Cargill, Inc. vs. Intra Strata
Assurance Corp., G.R. No.
168266 March 15, 2010
Strategic Alliance Dev. Corp. vs.
Star Infra Dev. Corp. et. al., G.R.
No. 187872, Nov. 17, 2010
Iglesia Evangelica Metodista En
Las Islas Filipinas, Inc. v. Juane,
G.R. Nos. 172447, Sept 18,
2009
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated July 17, 2006 reinstating the August 25, 2000
and September 26, 2000 Orders of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 66 which admitted respondent corporations
Answer and set the case for pre-trial, as well as the Resolution dated
October 12, 2006 denying the motion for reconsideration,
are AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88864, sustaining the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, in Civil
Case No. 06-138, is AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the March 31, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals
and its March 23, 2006 Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The dismissal order of the Regional Trial Court
dated November 15, 1999 is hereby set aside. Steelcases Amended
Complaint is hereby ordered REINSTATED and the case
is REMANDED to the RTC for appropriate action.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated May 5,
2006 and the Resolution dated July 10, 2006 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 75524 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE the
Decision dated 26 May 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
48447. We REINSTATE the Decision dated 23 November 1994 of the
trial court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the
assailed decision and resolution are, accordingly, REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered ORDERING the resumption
of proceedings in Civil Case No. 7956 without further delay. Subject to
the posting of the requisite bond in the sum of P10,000,000.00,
STRADEC's application for a writ of preliminary injunction is
likewise GRANTED.
WHEREFORE, the Court renders the following judgment:
(1) The Petition in G.R. No. 172447 is GRANTED. The Decision dated
10 April 2006 of the Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 85543 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated
14 November 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30, in
Civil Case No. 03-107439, which affirmed the Order dated 27 February
2003 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, in Civil
Case No. 173711-CV, denying the Motion to Dismiss of Natanael B.
Juane, is REINSTATED; and
(2) The Petition in G.R. No. 179404 is DENIED. The Decision dated 15
August 2007 of the Sixth Division the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 93222 affirming the findings of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 1 and the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26 that
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern9

Renato Real vs. Sangu
Philippines, Inc., et. al., G.R. No.
168757, Jan. 19, 2011
Chateau De Baie Condominium
Corp. v. Sps. Moreno, G.R. No.
186271, Feb. 23, 2011
Wack Wack Condominium
Corp., et al. v. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 78490, Nov. 23, 1992, 215
SCRA 850
Raul C. Cosare v. Broadcom
Asia, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
201298, Feb. 5, 2014
there was unlawful detainer in the case at bar is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against Natanael B. Juane.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed June 28,
2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it affirmed the National
Labor Relations Commissions dismissal of petitioners complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The June 5, 2003 Decision
of the Labor Arbiter with respect to petitioner Renato Real is AFFIRMED and
this case is ordered REMANDED to the National Labor Relations
Commission for the computation of petitioners backwages and attorneys
fees in accordance with this Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for review
on certiorari and AFFIRM the Decision, dated August 29, 2008, and
the Resolution, dated February 5, 2009, of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 93217. The Regional Trial Court, Branch
258, Paraaque City is directed to continue its proceedings in Civil Case
No. 05-0183. Costs against the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the SEC order denying the Motion to Dismiss SEC Case
No. 2675 entitled "Josefina Bayot vs. Wack Wack Condominium
Corporation, Welbilt Construction Corporation and Eugenio Juan
Gonzales", is AFFIRMED, and the case is remanded to the SEC for
further proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November
24, 2011 and Resolution dated March 26, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 117356 are SET ASIDE. The Decision dated
August 24, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in favor
of petitioner Raul C. Cosare is AFFIRMED.
Commercial Law Review – Atty. Ceniza – Corporation Law - #megenern10