Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NAUTICA CANNING CORPORATION v. ROBERTO C. YUMUL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175278 2015-09-23	GSIS FAMILY BANK - THRIFT BANK v. BPI FAMILY BANK JARDELEZA, J.
Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the SEC, are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration, more so if the same has been upheld by the appellate court, as in this case.[48]
	GR No. 174978 2013-07-31	SALLY YOSHIZAKI v. JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA BRION, J.
The CA correctly ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction over the present case. Joy Training seeks to nullify the sale of the real properties on the ground that there was no contract of agency between Joy Training and the spouses Johnson. This was beyond the ambit of the SEC's original and exclusive jurisdiction prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 8799 which only took effect on August 3, 2000. The determination of the existence of a contract of agency and the validity of a contract of sale requires the application of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. It is a well-settled rule that "[d]isputes concerning the application of the Civil Code are properly cognizable by courts of general jurisdiction."[31] Indeed, no special skill requiring the SEC's technical expertise is necessary for the disposition of this issue and of this case.
	GR No. 187872 2010-11-17	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
In upholding the RTC's pronouncement that venue was improperly laid, the CA ruled that STRADEC's first and second causes of action were not intra-corporate disputes because the issues pertaining thereto were civil in nature. In support of the foregoing conclusion, the CA cited Speed Distributing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals[43] where this Court essentially ruled out the existence of an intra-corporate dispute from an action instituted by the wife for the nullification of the transfer of a property between corporations of which her deceased husband was a stockholder. The CA also relied on this Court's pronouncement in Nautica Canning Corporation vs. Yumul[44] to the effect, among others, that an action to determine the validity of the transfer of shares from one stockholder to another is civil in nature and is, therefore, cognizable by regular courts and not the SEC.[45] In addition to the fact that the first case involved a civil action instituted against corporations by one who was not a stockholder thereof, however, STRADEC correctly points out that, unlike the second case, the limited jurisdiction of the SEC is not in issue in the case at bench.
	GR NO. 146313 2006-10-31	FLORENCIO ORENDAIN v. BF HOMES VELASCO, JR., J.
Moreover, the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic by the passage of RA 8799 or The Securities Regulation Code which took effect on August 8, 2000.[37]