ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > January 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 122452 January 29, 2001 - TAM
WING TAK v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 122452. January 29, 2001.]

TAM WING TAK, Petitioner, v. HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR (in his Capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35) and ZENON DE GUIA (in his capacity as Chief State Prosecutor), Respondents.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, dated September
14, 1995, which dismissed herein petitioner’s special civil action for mandamus and sustained the Letter-Order of
respondent Chief State Prosecutor. The latter dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the resolution of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City, which, in turn, dismissed petitioner’s complaint against Vic Ang Siong for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law or B.P. Blg. 22.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The factual background of this case is as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On November 11, 1992, Petitioner, in his capacity as director of Concord-World Properties, Inc., (Concord for brevity), a
domestic corporation, filed an affidavit-complaint with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, charging Vic Ang Siong with
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Docketed by the prosecutor as I.S. No. 93-15886, the complaint alleged that a check for the
amount of P83,550,000.00, issued by Vic Ang Siong in favor of Concord, was dishonored when presented for
encashment.

Vic Ang Siong sought the dismissal of the case on two grounds: First, that petitioner had no authority to file the case on
behalf of Concord, the payee of the dishonored check, since the firm’s board of directors had not empowered him to act
on its behalf. Second, he and Concord had already agreed to amicably settle the issue after he made a partial payment of
DebtKollect Company, Inc. P19,000,000.00 on the dishonored check.

On March 23, 1994, the City Prosecutor dismissed I.S. No. 93-15886 on the following grounds: (1) that petitioner lacked
the requisite authority to initiate the criminal complaint for and on Concord’s behalf; and (2) that Concord and Vic Ang
Siong had already agreed upon the payment of the latter’s balance on the dishonored check.

A copy of the City Prosecutor’s resolution was sent by registered mail to petitioner in the address he indicated in his
complaint-affidavit. Notwithstanding that petitioner was represented by counsel, the latter was not furnished a copy of the
resolution.

On June 27, 1994, petitioner’s counsel was able to secure a copy of the resolution dismissing I.S. No. 93-15886.
Counting his 15-day appeal period from said date, petitioner moved for reconsideration on July 7, 1994.

On October 21, 1994, the City Prosecutor denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner’s counsel received a
copy of the denial order on November 3, 1994.

On November 7, 1994, petitioner’s lawyer filed a motion to extend the period to appeal by an additional 15 days counted
from November 3, 1994 with the Chief State Prosecutor. He manifested that it would take time to communicate with
petitioner who is a Hong Kong resident and enable the latter to verify the appeal as procedurally required.

On November 8, 1994, petitioner appealed the dismissal of his complaint by the City Prosecutor to the Chief State
Prosecutor. The appeal was signed by petitioner’s attorney only and was not verified by petitioner until November 23,
ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division 1994.

On December 8, 1994, the Chief State Prosecutor dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time. Petitioner’s
lawyer received a copy of the letter-resolution dismissing the appeal on January 20, 1995.

January-2001 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 122934 January 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ANGEL PRECIADOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 123850 January 5, 2001 - TIMOTEO RECAÑA, JR.,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129777 January 5, 2001 - TCL SALES
CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. 01-1608-RTJ January 16, 2001 - SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN OF TAGUIG v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA.
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-99-1463 January 16, 2001 - LORETO T.
YU v. MATEO M. LEANDA
G.R. No. 117406 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ALBERTO GARCIA
G.R. Nos. 120394-97 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DANILO PABLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126050 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ELEAZAR M. MADALI
G.R. No. 128362 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
DOMINADOR DE LA CRUZ
G.R. No. 129242 January 16, 2001 - PILAR S. VDA. DE
MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130643 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
NESTOR SEDUCO
G.R. No. 132025 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MARGARITO GALO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 134074-75 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EMILIANO DURANAN
G.R. No. 134744 January 16, 2001 - GIAN PAULO VILLAFLOR
v. DINDO VIVAR
G.R. Nos. 135850-52 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SANTOS MIRAFUENTES
G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 & 138607 January 16, 2001 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERITO AMAZAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 137285 January 16, 2001 - ESTATE OF SALUD
JIMENEZ v. PHIL. EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE
G.R. No. 137665 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ALBERTO PAINITAN
G.R. No. 138385 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RUSTICO TILOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 138645 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
WILBERT CABAREÑO
G.R. No. 138959 January 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
DANILO OSING
G.R. No. 141008 January 16, 2001 - MARAWI MARANTAO
GENERAL HOSPITAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 131823 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ISAGANI PARAISO
G.R. Nos. 134844-45 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RICARDO DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 135657 January 17, 2001 - JOSE V. LAGON v.
HOOVEN COMALCO INDUSTRIES
G.R. No. 138609 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MARIANO TOYCO, SR.
On January 30, 1995, petitioner moved for reconsideration.
On March 9, 1995, respondent Chief State Prosecutor denied the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner then filed Civil Case No. 95-74394 for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to compel the
Chief State Prosecutor to file or cause the filing of an information charging Vic Ang Siong with violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
On September 14, 1995, the trial court disposed of the action as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, for utter lack of merit, the petition for mandamus of petitioner is DENIED and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 1
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the trial court denied this motion in its order dated October 24, 1995.
Hence, the instant petition.
Before this Court, petitioner claims respondent judge committed grave errors of law in sustaining respondent Chief State
Prosecutor whose action flagrantly contravenes: (1) the established rule on service of pleadings and orders upon parties
represented by counsel; (b) the basic principle that except in private crimes, any competent person may initiate a criminal
case; and (3) the B.P. Blg. 22 requirement that arrangement for full payment of a bounced check must be made by the
drawer with the drawee within five (5) banking days from notification of the check’s dishonor. 2
We find pertinent for our resolution the following issues: chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
(1) Was there valid service of the City Prosecutor’s resolution upon petitioner?
(2) Will mandamus lie to compel the City Prosecutor to file the necessary information in court?
In upholding respondent Chief State Prosecutor, the court a quo held: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
It is a generally accepted principle in the service of orders, resolutions, processes and other papers to serve them on the
party or his counsel, either in his office, if known, or else in the residence, also if known. As the party or his counsel is not
expected to be present at all times in his office or residence, service is allowed to be made with a person in charge of the
office, or with a person of sufficient discretion to receive the same in the residence.
In the case under consideration, it is not disputed that the controverted Resolution dismissing the complaint of the
petitioner against Vic Ang Siong was served on the former by registered mail and was actually delivered by the
postmaster on April 9, 1994 at said petitioner’s given address in the record at No. 5 Kayumanggi Street, West Triangle,
Quezon City. The registered mail was in fact received by S. Ferraro. The service then was complete and the period for
filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal began to toll from that date. It expired on April 24, 1994. Considering that his
motion for reconsideration was filed only on July 7, 1994, the same was filed beyond the prescribed period, thereby
precluding further appeal to the Office of the Respondent. 3
Petitioner, before us, submits that there is no such "generally accepted practice" which gives a tribunal the option of
serving pleadings, orders, resolutions, and other papers to either the opposing party himself or his counsel. Petitioner
insists that the fundamental rule in this jurisdiction is that it a party appears by counsel, then service can only be validly
made upon counsel and service upon the party himself becomes invalid and without effect. Petitioner relies upon Rule 13,
Section 2 of the Rules of Court 4 and our ruling in J.M. Javier Logging Corp. v. Mardo, 24 SCRA 776 (1968) to support his
stand. In the J.M. Javier case, we held: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
[W]here a party appears by attorney, notice to the former is not a notice in law, unless service upon the party himself is
ordered by the court. . . 5
The Solicitor General, for respondents, contends that the applicable rule on service in the present case is Section 2 of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Order No. 223, 6 which allows service to be made upon either party or his counsel.
Respondents argue that while a preliminary investigation has been considered as partaking of the nature of a judicial
proceeding, 7 nonetheless, it is not a court proceeding and hence, falls outside of the ambit of the Rules of Court.
We agree with petitioner that there is no "generally accepted practice" in the service of orders, resolutions, and
processes, which allows service upon either the litigant or his lawyer. As a rule, notice or service made upon a party who
is represented by counsel is a nullity. 8 However, said rule admits of exceptions, as when the court or tribunal orders
service upon the party 9 or when the technical defect is waived. 10
To resolve the issue on validity of service, we must make a determination as to which is the applicable rule — the rule on
service in the Rules of Court, as petitioner insists or the rule on service in DOJ Order No. 223?
The Rules of Court were promulgated by this Court pursuant to Section 13, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution 11 (now
Section 5 [5], Article VIII of the Constitution) 12 to govern "pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts of the
Philippines." The purpose of the Rules is clear and does not need any interpretation. The Rules were meant to govern
court (stress supplied) procedures and pleadings. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, a preliminary
investigation, notwithstanding its judicial nature, is not a court proceeding. The holding of a preliminary investigation is a
function of the Executive Department and not of the Judiciary. 13 Thus, the rule on service provided for in the Rules of
Court cannot be made to apply to the service of resolutions by public prosecutors, especially as the agency concerned, in
this case, the Department of Justice, has its own procedural rules governing said service.
A plain reading of Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223 clearly shows that in preliminary investigation, service can be made
upon the party himself or through his counsel. It must be assumed that when the Justice Department crafted the said
section, it was done with knowledge of the pertinent rule in the Rules of Court and of jurisprudence interpreting it. The
DOJ could have just adopted the rule on service provided for in the Rules of Court, but did not. Instead, it opted to word
Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223 in such a way as to leave no doubt that in preliminary investigations, service of
resolutions of public prosecutors could be made upon either the party or his counsel. cralaw : red
Moreover, the Constitution provides that "Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court." 14 There is naught in the records to show that we have disapproved
and nullified Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223 and since its validity is not an issue in the instant case, we shall refrain from
ruling upon its validity.
We hold that there was valid service upon petitioner pursuant to Section 2 of DOJ Order No. 223.
On the issue of whether mandamus will lie. In general, mandamus may be resorted to only where one’s right is founded
clearly in law and not when it is doubtful. 15 The exception is to be found in criminal cases where mandamus is available
to compel the performance by the public prosecutor of an ostensibly discretionary function, where by reason of grave
abuse of discretion on his part, he willfully refuses to perform a duty mandated by law. 16 Thus, mandamus may issue to
compel a prosecutor to file an information when he refused to do so in spite of the prima facie evidence of guilt. 17
Petitioner takes the stance that it was grave abuse for discretion on the part of respondent Chief State Prosecutor to
sustain the dismissal of I.S. No. 93-15886 on the grounds that: (1) Vic Ang Siong’s obligation which gave rise to the
bounced check had already been extinguished by partial payment and agreement to amicably settle balance, and (2)
petitioner had no standing to file the criminal complaint since he was neither the payee nor holder of the bad check.
Petitioner opines that neither ground justifies dismissal of his complaint.
Petitioner’s stand is unavailing. Respondent Chief State Prosecutor in refusing to order the filing of an information for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Vic Ang Siong did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.
First, with respect to the agreement between Concord and Victor Ang Siong to amicably settle their difference, we find
this resort to an alternative dispute settlement mechanism as not contrary to law, public policy, or public order. Efforts of
parties to solve their disputes outside of the courts are looked on with favor, in view of the clogged dockets of the
judiciary.
 G.R. No. 139340 January 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
NATIVIDAD LOVEDORIAL
A.M. No. P-00-1428 January 18, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. IMELDA S. PERLEZ
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1579 January 18, 2001 - GERARDO M.
SANTOS, ET AL. v. LORENZO R SILVA JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. 106826 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
OSCAR OLIVA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 116372 January 18, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128750 January 18, 2001 - CARQUELO OMANDAM,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129305 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
SUKARNO DINDO
G.R. No. 130335 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
JESSIE OLIVO
G.R. No. 132159 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CESAR GIVERA
G.R. No. 132392 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CESAR MARCOS
G.R. No. 135034 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ADRIANO SEGUIS, AT AL.
G.R. No. 136731 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CESAR ROBLES
G.R. No. 138233 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RONIL ABUNDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 139943 January 18, 2001 - MANUEL MIRALLES v.
SERGIO F. GO
G.R. No. 141183 January 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
DANILO GULION, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567 January 19, 2001 - FERNANDO DELA
CRUZ v. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA
G.R. No. 91486 January 19, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 119542 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
AS VERJANON RABANAL
G.R. No. 128095 January 19, 2001 - MANUEL HUANG CHUA v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JULIAN ESCAÑO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129769 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ANTONIO BELGA
G.R. No. 133090 January 19, 2001 - REXIE EFREN A.
BUGARING, ET AL. v. DOLORES S. ESPAÑOL
G.R. No. 134913 January 19, 2001 - ZAIPAL D. BENITO v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 139539 January 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
MANUEL CASTILLO
G.R. No. 139941 January 19, 2001 - VICENTE B. CHUIDIAN v.
SANDIGANBAYAN , ET AL.
G.R. No. 140232 January 19, 2001 - PCGG v. ANIANO
DESIERTO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 141466 January 19, 2001 - ELIZA T. TAN v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 127182 January 22, 2001 - ALMA G. DE LEON v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129057 January 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
BILLY DE LEON
G.R. No. 130406 January 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RUEL BAWAY
G.R. Nos. 134566-67 January 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. GONYETO FRANCISCO
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1270 January 23, 2001 - GERMAN
WENCESLAO CRUZ v. DANIEL C. JOVEN
G.R. No. 93707 January 23, 2001 - ROSITA TAN v. JOSE L.
LAPAK
G.R. No. 136048 January 23, 2001 - JOSE BARITUA, ET AL. v.
NIMFA DIVINA MERCADER, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136308 January 23, 2001 - ELAINE A. DEL ROSARIO
v. MELINDA F. BONGA
G.R. No. 138822 January 23, 2001 - EVANGELINE ALDAY v.
FGU INSURANCE CORP.
G.R. No. 139471 January 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ROLANDO MAGABO
A.C. No. 3637 January 24, 2001 - RURAL BANK OF SILAY v.
ERNESTO H. PILLA
G.R. Nos. 112089 & 112737 January 24, 2001 - REMEDIOS A.
DUPASQUIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 120784-85 January 24, 2001 - WARLITO BUSTOS,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Second, it is not disputed in the instant case that Concord, a domestic corporation, was the payee of the bum check, not
petitioner. Therefore, it is Concord, as payee of the bounced check, which is the injured party. Since petitioner was neither
a payee nor a holder of the bad check, he had neither the personality to sue nor a cause of action against Vic Ang Siong.
Under Section 36 of the Corporation Code 18 read in relation to Section 23, 19 it is clear that where a corporation is an
injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of directors or trustees. 20 Note that petitioner failed to show any
proof that he was authorized or deputized or granted specific powers by Concord’s board of director to sue Victor Ang
Siong for and on behalf of the firm. Clearly, petitioner as a minority stockholder and member of the board of directors had
no such power or authority to sue on Concord’s behalf. Nor can we uphold his act as a derivative suit. For a derivative
suit to prosper, it is required that the minority stockholder suing for and on behalf of the corporation must allege in his
complaint that he is suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the corporation and all other stockholders similarly
situated who may wish to join him in the suit. 21 There is no showing that petitioner has complied with the foregoing
requisites. It is obvious that petitioner has not shown any clear legal right which would warrant the overturning of the
decision of public respondents to dismiss the complaint against Vic Ang Siong. A public prosecutor, by the nature of his
office, is under no compulsion to file a criminal information where no clear legal justification has been shown, and no
sufficient evidence of guilt nor prima facie case has been presented by the petitioner. 22 No reversible error may be
attributed to the court a quo when it dismissed petitioner’s special civil action for mandamus.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, p. 33.
2. Id. at 6-7.
3. Id. at 32.
4. Said provision reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SECTION 2. Papers to be filed and served. — Every order required by its terms to be served, every
pleading subsequent to the complaint, every written motion other than one which be heard ex parte, and
every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court
and served upon the parties affected thereby. If any of such parties has appeared by an attorney or
attorneys, service upon him shall be made upon his attorneys or one of them, unless service upon the
party himself is ordered by the court. When one attorney appears for several parties, he shall only be
entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.
5. 24 SCRA 779 (1968) citing Vivero v. Santos, 98 Phil. 500, 504 (1956); Chavani v. Tancinco, 90 Phil.
862, 864 (1952), San Jacinto v. San Jacinto, 52 Off. Gaz. 2582.
6. The provision reads: "The appeal must be filed within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
questioned resolution by the party or his counsel. The period shall be interrupted only by the filing of a
motion for resolution within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution and shall continue to run from the
time the resolution denying the counsel has been received by the movant or his counsel." Note that DOJ
Order No. 223 dated June 30, 1993 has already been superseded by DOJ Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS)
dated July 3, 2000, which took effect on September 1, 2000.
7. Cojuangco, Jr., v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 190 SCRA 226, 243 (1990).
8. Antonio v. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 592, 600 (1987) citing Republic of the Philippines v. Arro, 150
SCRA 625 (1987).
9. Jalover v. Ytorriaga, 80 SCRA 100, 106 (1977) citing J.M. Javier Logging Corp. v. Mardo, supra; Elli Et.
Al., v. Ditan, Et Al., 5 SCRA 503 (1962); McGrath v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 1 SCRA 639 (1961).
10. National Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Velasco, 106 Phil. 1098, 1101 (1960).
11. "The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on
pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Court,
subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have the
power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure and the
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines." cralaw virtua1aw library
12. "The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
[5] Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
13. Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 581, 594-595 (1998); People v. Navarro, 270 SCRA 393,
400 (1997).
14. CONST. art. viii, sec. 5(5).
15. Garces v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 99, 105-106 (1996).
16. REGALADO, I REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM (5th ed.) 464 (1988).
17. People v. Orais, 65 Phil. 744, 757 (1938).
18. SEC. 36. Corporate powers and capacities. — Every corporation incorporated under this Code has
the power and capacity: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. To sue and be sued in its corporate name.
x x x
19. SEC. 23. The board of directors or trustees. — Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate
powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised . . . by the board of directors or
trustees to be elected from among the holders of stock, or where there is no stock, from among the
members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year and until their successors are elected
and qualified.
20. Premium Marble Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 11, 17 (1996).
 G.R. No. 121777 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 21. Western Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Salas, 278 SCRA 216, 225 (1997).
CAROL M. DELA PIEDRA
22. D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra, 260 SCRA 74, 86 (1996).
G.R. No. 128105 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
LUDRING VALDEZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. 128116 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

GILBERT PERALTA

G.R. Nos. 135560-61 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE Back to Home | Back to Main
PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN

G.R. Nos. 136147-48 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. RONNIE TORRES QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 137696 January 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
EDDIE SERNADILLA

G.R. No. 139519 January 24, 2001 - CONCHITO J. OCLARIT v. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
MAXIMO G. W. PADERANGA
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 136304 January 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
ROGER RAMA
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 137750 January 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
DINDO ABSALON, ET AL.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 138086 January 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
CONDE RAPISORA
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 140765 January 25, 2001 - GONZALO R. GONZALES 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
v. STATE PROPERTIES CORP.
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
A.C. No. 4943 January 26, 2001 - DIANA D. DE GUZMAN v.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
LOURDES I. DE DIOS
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
A.M. No. P-99-1287 January 26, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MISAEL M. LADAGA
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 94996 January 26, 2001 - ALEMAR’S v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

G.R. Nos. 99398 & 104625 January 26, 2001 - CHESTER

BABST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 114316 January 26, 2001 - SECURITY AND CREDIT

INVESTIGATION v. NLRC, ET AL.
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 122088 January 26, 2001 - GOLD LOOP
PROPERTIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 140688 January 26, 2001 - EDUARDO E. GATDULA v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. 107125 January 29, 2001 - GEORGE MANANTAN v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 107529-30 January 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. PATRICIO Y. BAGCAL

G.R. No. 114917 January 29, 2001 - LUCIBAR ROCA v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120528 January 29, 2001 - DIONISIO CALIBO v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 120547 January 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

EDISON PLAZO

G.R. Nos. 121413, 121479 & 128604 January 29, 2001 - PHIL.
COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL

G.R. No. 122452 January 29, 2001 - TAM WING TAK v. RAMON
P. MAKASIAR

G.R. No. 137152 January 29, 2001 - CITY OF MANDALUYONG

v. ANTONIO N. AGUILAR

G.R. No. 138975 January 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

FELIX MADERAS

G.R. No. 140158 January 29, 2001 - FERNANDO T. BALTAZAR

v. COMELEC, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 143366 & 143524 January 29, 2001 - LUIS MARIO M.
GENERAL v. RAMON S. ROCO

G.R. No. 124892 January 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

LAURO MARTINEZ

G.R. No. 134343 January 30, 2001 - MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 136228 January 30, 2001 - EMMA GALLARDO-

CORRO, ET AL. v. EFREN DON L. GALLARDO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 137344 January 30, 2001 - FEDIL URIARTE, ET AL. v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. 137770 January 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

FERNANDO DULOT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 138936 January 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

ROLANDO SOLIS

G.R. No. 142049 January 30, 2001 - GERMAN MARINE

AGENCIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 125923 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

TORADIO SILVANO

G.R. Nos. 128088 & 146639 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. WILSON RONAS

G.R. No. 130492 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.

SALVADOR ARROJADO

G.R. No. 134958 January 31, 2001 - PATRICIO CUTARAN, ET

AL. v. DENR, ET AL.
 G.R. No. 136102 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
RENE DELAMAR

G.R. Nos. 137106-07 January 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. JOSE ELPEDES

G.R. No. 139813 January 31, 2001 - JOEL BITO-ONON v.

NELIA YAP FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED