This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Fraud cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.[17] Whoever alleges fraud affecting a transaction must substantiate his allegation, because a person is always presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns, and private transactions are similarly presumed to have been fair and regular.[18] To be remembered is that mere allegation is definitely not evidence; hence, it must be proved by sufficient evidence.[19] | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Applying the foregoing to the present case, the LA had the original jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal because Cosare, although an officer of Broadcom for being its AVP for Sales, was not a "corporate officer" as the term is defined by law. We emphasized in Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc.[32] the definition of corporate officers for the purpose of identifying an intra-corporate controversy. Citing Garcia v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.,[33] we held:" 'Corporate officers' in the context of Presidential Decree No. 902-A are those officers of the corporation who are given that character by the Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws. There are three specific officers whom a corporation must have under Section 25 of the Corporation Code. These are the president, secretary and the treasurer. The number of officers is not limited to these three. A corporation may have such other officers as may be provided for by its by-laws like, but not limited to, the vice-president, cashier, auditor or general manager. The number of corporate officers is thus limited by law and by the corporation's by-laws."[34] (Emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2013-10-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Given these circumstances, it would be a circuitous exercise for the Court to remand the case to the NLRC, more so in the absence of any showing that the NLRC should now rule differently on the case's merits. In Medline Management, Inc. v. Roslinda,[127] the Court ruled that when there is enough basis on which the Court may render a proper evaluation of the merits of the case, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure of remanding a case to a labor tribunal in order "to prevent delays in the disposition of the case," "to serve the ends of justice" and when a remand "would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of fair play."[128] In Real v. Sangu Philippines, Inc.,[129] we again ruled: With the foregoing, it is clear that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the NLRC which dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In cases such as this, the Court normally remands the case to the NLRC and directs it to properly dispose of the case on the merits. "However, when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case." "It is already an accepted rule of procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of litigation. If, based on the records, the pleadings, and other evidence, the dispute can be resolved by us, we will do so to serve the ends of justice instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings." x x x.[130] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| That respondent was also a director and a stockholder of petitioner corporation will not automatically make the case fall within the ambit of intra-corporate controversy and be subjected to RTC's jurisdiction. To reiterate, not all conflicts between the stockholders and the corporation are classified as intra-corporate. Other factors such as the status or relationship of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy [44] must be considered in determining whether the dispute involves corporate matters so as to regard them as intra-corporate controversies. [45] As previously discussed, respondent was not a corporate officer of petitioner corporation but a mere employee thereof so there was no intra-corporate relationship between them. With regard to the subject of the controversy or issue involved herein, i.e., respondent's dismissal as petitioner corporation's General Manager, the same did not present or relate to an intra-corporate dispute. To note, there was no evidence submitted to show that respondent's removal as petitioner corporation's General Manager carried with it his removal as its director and stockholder. Also, petitioners' allegation that respondent's claim of 30% share of petitioner corporation's net profit was by reason of his being its director and stockholder was without basis, thus, self-serving. Such an allegation was tantamount to a mere speculation for petitioners' failure to substantiate the same. | |||||