Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NECTARINA S. RANIEL v. PAUL JOCHICO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 215764 2015-07-06	RICHARD K. TOM v. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Keeping the foregoing in mind, the Court finds that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Tom’s prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The issuance of an injunctive writ is warranted to enjoin the RTC-Nabunturan from implementing its November 13, 2013 and December 11, 2013 Orders in the specific performance case placing the management and control of GDITI to Rodriguez, among other directives. This pronouncement follows the well-entrenched rule that a corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents, except in instances where the Corporation Code requires stockholders’ approval for certain specific acts.[46] As statutorily provided for in Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 68,[47] otherwise known as “The Corporation Code of the Philippines”: 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, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year until their successors are elected and qualified.
	GR Nos. 163356-57 2015-07-01	JOSE A. BERNAS v. JOVENCIO F. CINCO PEREZ, J.
A corporation’s board of directors is understood to be that body which (1) exercises all powers provided for under the Corporation Code; (2) conducts all business of the corporation; and (3) controls and holds all the property of the corporation. Its members have been characterized as trustees or directors clothed with fiduciary character.[25]
	GR No. 195649 2013-07-02	CASAN MACODE MACQUILING v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of said agencies, or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence.[8] They are accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court, unless it is shown that the administrative body had arbitrarily disregarded or misapprehended evidence before it to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion had such evidence been properly appreciated.[9]
	GR No. 187317 2013-04-11	CARLITO C. ENCINAS v. PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN SERENO, C.J.
At the outset, we stress the settled rule that the findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the former, or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence.[94] These factual findings carry even more weight when affirmed by the CA, in which case they are accorded not only great respect, but even finality. These findings are binding upon this Court, unless it is shown that the administrative body has arbitrarily disregarded or misapprehended evidence before the latter to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion, had the evidence been properly appreciated.[95] This rule is rooted in the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts.[96] By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment on those matters.[97]
	GR No. 179761 2010-01-15	CATMON SALES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. ATTY. MANUEL D. YNGSON NACHURA, J.
We stress the settled rule that the findings of fact of administrative bodies, such as the SEC, will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of said agencies, or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence. These factual findings carry even more weight when affirmed by the CA. They are accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court, unless it is shown that the administrative body had arbitrarily disregarded or misapprehended evidence before it to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion had such evidence been properly appreciated.[16] By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon.[17]